Talk:Christian Science/Archive 9

Well, I think the material on CS theology/philosophy is thin and minimal. In terms of space it seems to be overshadowed by a lot of historical and contextual material. It's a bit like having an article on Kant which tells us what he liked for breakfast and his fights with his grandmother, but little or nothing about his teachings on the Ding-an-sich, the noumena/phenomena, the categories, or the categorical imperative. For example I have a book called Christian Science Class Instruction, by Arthur Corey (CA, DeVorss, 1950). Corey was a dissident Christian Science practitioner and teacher who resigned from membership of the CS church, so he could hardly be called a mouthpiece of the organization. The book is very well written and an accurate reflection of CS teaching. Nevertheless I hesitate to use/cite it as a source in the article, as pro-CS sources seem to get much shorter shrift than anti or neutral sources by the most active editors, and I don't have the time to waste on posting material that would be quickly removed. To give a flavor, there are chapters in the Corey book on Revelation, Discovering God, The Supreme Being, The Divine Nature, Reflection, Man, Body, Universe, Error, Mortal Mind, Animal Magnetism, Organs and Functions, Treatment, Demonstration, The Christ, etc. The book makes it particular clear that CS is a form of monistic theistic idealism rather than any form of dualism. I can put something together from the book on CS theology which will be accurate and informative if I can get an assurance that my edits will not be routinely removed. BTW I am not a representative of the CS church in any way, shape or form and Indeed I imagine they wouldn't particularly like it if Corey was used as a source in this article, since he was a dissident in political (though not in doctrinal) terms. Anyway I look forward to a response on this.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Be-nice:-). I use a simpler rule of thumb, however. The article, while better than it ever has been, still is unencyclopedic. If one comes to the article looking for information on Christian Science, one doesn't really find it. This results in users going elsewhere for information, which defeats the purpose of constructing and editing the article.

"The sources" tend say what we desire them to say in the way we extract them. There is absolutely no proof (and no way to prove) that the aggregate of sources in the article are representative of all available sources or that the way we say they handle the material is representative how the material is handled. (As an aside, had anyone brought me a paper of this length while I was teaching I would have sent them back to the library for being overdependent on few sources.) Ultimately the litmus test of any article is (1) is it informative, (2) is it readable and (3) does it make sense. All the waving of NPOV flags or equality of reference is absolutely pointless if the article does not appear to be unbiased to the reader (who doesn't and won't read all the policy articles and probably doesn't care.) Truth, if such exists, is not responsive to vigorous hand-waving.

I'm anxious to see what Be-nice:-) comes up with. I share his suspicion, however, that any edits will not be accepted by the powers that be.

--Digitalican (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna wait for a while and see if I get any negative response here. If not, I'll go ahead. But as I said, I really don't have time to waste putting in stuff that's going to be routinely removed. I presume we all--whatever our perspective--want the article on Christian Science to tell us what Christian Science is, rather than focusing overwhelmingly on biographical issues re MBE, and the effects of her teaching on the world. To take another example from philosophy, the article in its current form is a bit like an article on the teachings of Plato focusing (a) on Plato's personal life and (b) on his pernicious effect (as e.g. Popper saw it) on politics in terms of totalitarianism etc, rather than on the teachings themselves.Be-nice:-) (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point about truth Digitalican. If the philosophical anti-realists are right, there's no such thing and philosophers are all involved in power-struggles masquerading as the search for truth. And if the realists are right, truth, if it exists, bears little resemblance to what we are familiar with in the world.Be-nice:-) (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

History and Wikipedia are written by the winners. :) At some point, in the years-long struggles with this page, someone asserted that Wikipedia was not about truth but in a sense was some kind of measure of the cultural zeitgeist. Fair enough -- that is in itself a sort of useful tool. I am also reminded of the Tao Te Ching which says, essentially, that because you have measured the world does not mean you have changed it. (This is what happens when two people steeped in Christian Science start talking: the conversation immediately drops into metaphysics.) --Digitalican (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Be-nice, I have no problem with you expanding the theology section, but it's difficult to say in advance that it would be okay. My concern about that source is that he's very "in universe," very religious, so it might be difficult to extrapolate any philosophy without engaging in OR. Could you propose a sentence or two so that we have the flavour of it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Another option would be to create a new page, Christian Science theology. It would give you more space and we could sum it up here summary-style. Some other examples: Christian theology, Buddhist philosophy, Islamic theology, Jewish philosophy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool--I might do that if I get some time. Anyway, here are a couple of quotes from the Corey book (the book is liberally referenced to MBE's writings to back up the author's points):

On Principle [God] and idea [man]: "To illustrate this essential oneness or inseparability of Principle [God] and idea, let us say that your friend visits you and you acknowledge his presence. Is not your friend manifested to you? When he departs, you would not expect him to leave his manifestation with you--for his manifestation is your friend manifest. Likewise, thought cannot be detached even figuratively from Mind, for it itself is Mind thinking. Mind is wherever it is manifest as thought, and nowhere else. Its expression is its presence. Manifestation is God in expression. Man, perforce, is God--expressed. "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him." (Genesis 1: 27.) But this that is God beholding Himself is one Being, so that God is all that there is to man." (Corey 1950: 51). That's an exceptionally clear statement of CS theology and also answers the mainstream Christian allegation that Christian Scientists reject the divinity of Christ. (Christ Jesus, considered in his spiritual identity, is God manifest. Considered humanly, he was a human being.)

There are not too creations, a spiritual and a material, but only one spiritual creation, albeit incorrectly perceived: "...the successful practitioner does not turn away from error; instead, he turns it, reverses it, so establishing what is appearing in his present experience as the very expression of God. Materiality recognized as the inverted image of spirituality, is automatically reversed, so that spirituality alone remains." (Corey 1950: 102)

Against dualism (ie from the viewpoint that there is only one reality, the spiritual reality, which is misconceived as material): "Suppose you see a modern painting, of the abstract type, for the first time and, failing to grasp its import, you were to say--as is too often done!--that you could do better than that without a single lesson [...} Then suppose you returned, after a period of art study and experience, to again view the same painting, and found therein a soul-satisfying play of color and light, expressing high inspiration. It would remain the same painting, unchanged, and you would be the same observer. And yet, in a manner of speaking, it would be a new painting and to you a real work of art. You would recognize it in its every detail as the same painting, but you would see it differently [...] But are there two paintings, a genuine and a counterfeit? They are not too, but one." (Corey 1950: 105-106)Be-nice:-) (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC) I love these ideas!!! Thank you for your willingness to make this article a little more approachable and a little less academic. I'm looking at the Christianity page, for example, and you come away with basic Christian concepts. It's not a page about what the atheists think about Christianity. It is presenting Christianity in a way that someone can understand it. Then someone can decide for themselves. Simplywater (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad you like them Simplywater (I presume the moniker comes from what you say when someone offers you a double scotch on the rocks?!) BTW, could you leave a line between your comments and the preceding ones? Otherwise they get joined up and it's difficult to see who's sayiing what!Be-nice:-) (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thank's Be nice. I say "go for it". I wanted to add a little piece about the rise of Christian healing around the mid to late 1800's. and MBE relationship to that. Any problem. It will just be a paragraph. What is missing from the article is How Christian Science was Christian. The article is filled with how it is everything but Christian. Let me know if anyone minds.Simplywater (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that this is not a encyclopedia page. And I appreciate all the long hours. But it is too much like a dissertation. And if you want to eliminate any evidence that doesn't jive with your thesis. "Christian Science is a part of the metaphysical camp" There is a problem slimvirgin. You just have to be honest with yourself. Do you want to know what Christian Science is? Heal something. Then you will know. In Christian Science. kids heal others the best sometimes because it is from the heartSimplywater (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

...but Christian Science is part of the "metaphysical camp." I think this is indisputable. I think that it is you who are not being honest with yourself. You need to put aside your prejudices, read the article, and listen to what people are trying to tell you -- which to this point you have refused to do. It does not matter how you or I feel subjectively about Christian Science, what is important here is that it is described accurately -- which is still lacking but not for the reasons you keep slamming on. I actually like, for reasons I won't go into, what SlimVirgin has done, though I certainly do not always agree with her. I think you need to step back three paces, become acculturated to Wikipedia, and read the article for what it is. --Digitalican (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote from the footnotes: Nichols and Mather 2006, p. 55: "Christian Science ... bears little resemblance to historic Christianity. Each is built on a different foundation – the former on the fundamentals of Greek and Cartesian dualism, the latter on a Hebraistic worldview and a biblical monotheism." This is an example of what is wrong with much of the secondary literature. They just don't "get" Christian Science in philosophical or theological terms. In fact, CS is monistic: it teaches that there is just one creation, a spiritual creation (which is incorrectly perceived as material). For CS, Spirit is all that there is and matter is unreal; good is all that exists and evil is unreal. It is mainstream Christianity that is dualistic, teaching the reality of the spiritual and the material, of good and evil. (NB mainstream Christianity is certainly influenced by Greek philosophy, specifically by Aristotle--whose teachings supplanted those of Plato in Christian theology in the middle ages--and Platonic themes can be found in the Bible, specifically in Hebrews and Revelation). In fact CS is closer than mainstream Christianity to the "Hebraistic worldview" which did not teach that a human being could be God, that God would torture sinners for eternity, and which emphatically taught that there is only one God (not three).Be-nice:-) (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The question is, was Jesus a metaphysician? How did he heal? And does it matter? Those who recognize that that was Mary Baker Eddy's question and life's purpose call Christian Science very Christian and include her in the Bible based healing movement of the late 1800's. Simplywater (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"consistent with Christian theology"

I would like to strike the word 'traditional' because we do not believe we subscribe to traditional Christian theology S&H page 496

Have Christian Scientists any religious creed? Answer. — They have not, if by that term is meant doctrinal beliefs.

I would like to add the tenets of Christian Science as a reference to "consistent with Christian theology"

1. It won't take up any space.
2. There are 5 different academic, secondary sources that list the tenents.
3. Both Melton and Shoephflin understood that before you could honestly criticize Mary Baker Eddy's theology, one needed to fearlessly state it. that is why they presented the tenets.
4. Withholding the tenets from this article is like making cocoa without the chocolate, and then critizing it for not being chocolate i.e. in the third paragraph under Christian Science Theology it says 'there is no original sin, trinity, ect,ect"

The tenets are simply the easiest, most understandable way to show why Mary Baker Eddy felt her religion was consistent with Christianity.

1. The central text is the Bible (we take the inspired word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal life)
2. Chistian Science is monotheistic (We adore one supreme infinite God)
3. Her version of the Trinity ( one God, His Son, and the Holy Ghost, Divine Science)
4. Her version of the atonement (Christ, unfolding man's unity with God)
5. Her version of salvation (through Christ, healing the sick and overcoming sin and death) ect.

I would also like to strike the first sentence in the third paragraph under Christian Science Theology as it is an opinion. Or you could say, according to so and so.Simplywater (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Two observations on the paragraph about Awakenings now at the start of the section titled Metaphysical-CS-New Thought:

• The secondary sources in footnote 11 disagree, which should be noted in the text.
• As The WP new religious movement lead and its Terminology section notes, the term “cult” was once used by sociologists of religion (following Weber), but in the past ~30 years it has been replaced by the term "new religious movement": "Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word cult, which is often considered derogatory." Other neutral terms cited on this page as roughly equivalent replacements are emergent, alternative, or marginal religion, movement, or sect. (Note: Pritchard and McLoughlin, cited in footnote 11, published in 1976 and 1980 respectively, which is why they use the term “cult.” Both wrote at the tail end of the term’s phase-out.)

Re: disagreement of cited sources: Melton (quoted in footnote 11) decides that new sects including CS “appeared to challenge Christianity's exclusive hegemony over the religious experience of Western culture.” Whereas McLoughlin (p. 16-17) decides conversely that “There has been no single prophet in America’s five awakenings and no national displacement of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There have, of course, been individual religious leaders, of great force, who founded new denominations or cults: Joseph Smith and Brigham Young among the Mormons; Ann Lee among the Shakers; Aimee Semple McPherson and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel; William J. Seymour among the black Pentecostalists; William Miller and Ellen White among the Adventists; Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science; Charles Taze Russell founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses. These leaders have sustained a core of believers, not by repudiating Christianity, but by supplementing or modifying it. They all fall within the Judeo-Christian tradition in major aspects of their theology, and, despite some eccentricities, they generally conform to the prevailing codes of behavior. They have not deflected the mainstream of American culture and, in fact, generally claim to represent a better version of it.”

This shows the spectrum here. Pritchard’s view appears to be somewhere in the middle of these two (she calls some new sects Christian, others not) and as she doesn’t mention Eddy or CS, there isn't an equivalent quotation.

In case this should come into play, of the three sources in fn 11, McLoughlin is by far the most heavily cited by other works.

Also note that McLoughlin theorizes five, not two, periods of awakening and reform. Though of course only two of these periods are relevant to the movements listed in this paragraph, he postulates that all five led to a proliferation of sects in the US.

A bit more re: the terms “cult” and “new religious movement”: The NRM term has baggage of its own primarily in that "Scholars continue to try to reach definitions and define boundaries" - ie, it hasn't been clearly defined - which is part of why variants arose. Still, it’s the most commonly used. There’s a good basic discussion of several terms currently in use for religions emerging in modernity in Stephen J. Stein, Communities of Dissent: A History of Alternative Religions in America (New York: Oxford, 2000), 2-4 in the Preface. Stein’s suggestion of the term “communities of dissent” is unique to his work, though an interesting idea.--Ath271 (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for adding this, ath271. Simplywater (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone going to respond? I'm happy to look into making the changes. Is that ok with you slimvirgin?Simplywater (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we add this video this to add balance to the Mark Twain Section? Mark Twain said a lot about Christian Science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Aei4Ttb4-gSimplywater (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

From the Intro: "A census at the height of the movement's popularity in 1936 counted nearly 270,000 Christian Scientists in the United States; as of 2008 there was a worldwide membership of 100,000–400,000." It's clear even to the most committed Christian Scientist (perhaps particularly to him/her) that there has been a numerical decline in membership in recent decades. I don't know how the figure "100,000-400,000" was arrived at, but any suggestion of an actual increase in membership (outside of Africa) seems wildly misleading.Be-nice:-) (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I just noticed that it was talking about two different things: (a) numbers in the US and (b) numbers worldwide. From the footnote, apparently the source of the high figure is the CS church itself: "The church estimates it has about 400,000 members worldwide." However, I don't see how that could be, since Mary Baker Eddy expressly writes in the governing document (the Church Manual, Article VIII, Section 28 ): "Christian Scientists shall not report for publication the number of members of The Mother Church, nor that of the branch churches. According to the Scripture they shall turn away from personality and numbering the people."Be-nice:-) (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Simplywater (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The footnote that is sourced to the CS church comes from a NPR broadcast on PBS. I'm skeptical that it actually came from anyone in the church who knows membership totals. I suspect it was more likely that someone working for a branch church gave this number to the reporter as a ballpark estimate. Obviously the Mother Church has more accurate numbers but does not release them. However, that is what the source says so that's why it's in the article.

The phrasing of membership totals has been debated extensively in the past on the talk pages, you can find details by searching the talk archives if you are interested. Wikiuser1239 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is still inaccurate:

"There is no original sin, Trinity, miracles, resurrection or atonement in Christian Science, "or at least [Eddy] so allegorized these concepts that they seemed to vanish," according to Philip Jenkins."

CS certainly does not believe in original sin, so that one is correct. Like Judaic monotheism, it believes in one God, not three. It disbelieves in miracles, but teaches that what appear to be miracles are the application of laws of nature that are not currently understood, e.g. the ability to adjust (what appears as) reality by adjusting one's beliefs about it. Christian Science teaches the reality of Jesus' resurrection and there are numerous references to it in Eddy's writings. It's true that she teaches the ultimate unreality of death (like that of all forms of evil) but people who insist that Christians need to believe that Jesus "died" on the cross never actually tell us what they think that entails, for the very good reason that they don't know (neither does anyone else). Christian Science certainly teaches the atonement, though not as it is conventionally understood: ie that God required the torture and death of his son in order to save the rest of humanity from the eternal torture that he would otherwise have allowed them to undergo, because a distant ancestor, created from her husband's rib, indulged in a bit of orchard-robbing at the behest of a talking serpent and gave her husband a bite of the fruit.Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Be nice, Couldn't agree more about original sin.

Miracles - It would be helpful to know what in Mary Baker Eddy's writings you are referring to about miracles. Is there some passages specifically? She really says quite a bit about miracles, the "miracle of grace" for example. And while you are correct that she doesn't think they are breaking a natural law, she very much believes, honors and acknowledges the marvel of God.

A miracle fulfils God's law, but does not violate that law. S&H page 134.Simplywater (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Look up "miracles" in a concordance to S&H. E.g: "Miracles are impossible in Science, and here Science takes issue with popular religions. The scientific manifestation of power is from the divine nature and is not supernatural." S&H 83: 12-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Be-nice:-) (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "miracles are impossible in Science" She does make a clear distinction between the supernatural and the 'supremely natural'. Good therefore is supremely natural. Science is God's knowledge, God's law. God doesn't have a concept of chaos or illness that needs to be fixed by His or Her miraculous intervention. Science is the natural law of the Kingdom of Heaven, Reality. However, from a human point of view, the virgin birth, the resurrection, healing are wonderful marvels.

Under the title "miracles rejected" in Science and Health pg 474

The reception accorded to Truth in the early Chris‐

tian era is repeated to-day. Whoever introduces the Science of Christianity will be scoffed at and scourged with worse cords than those which cut the flesh. To the ignorant age in which it first appears, Science seems to be a mistake, — hence the misinterpretation and consequent maltreatment which it receives. Christian marvels (and marvel is the sim‐ ple meaning of the Greek word rendered miracle in the New Testament) will be misunderstood and misused by many, until the glorious Principle of these marvels is gained.Simplywater (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thought you may enjoy this from the Wycliffe Bible Luke 1:77  'To give science of health to his people, into remission of their sins;'   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Atonement Found this interesting assessment of Eddy's view of the atonement from the Introduction of a book called Faith, Cures and Answered Prayers. ^[1] The author of the introduction Rosemary D. Gooden writes that Mary Baker Eddy's view of the atonement was perfectly in line with the "Normative" view of atonement in the divine healing movement of the mid 1800 even as espoused by Rev Gordan, a leader of that movement. Her view of atonement, like theirs included redemption from 'sickness' as well as 'sin'.

"Do I believe in the atonement of Christ? I do, and this becomes more to me since it includes man's redemption from sickness as well as from sin. I reverence and adore Christ as never before" (This is part of Eddy's response to Gordon on the assertion from him that she did not believe in the atonement Mis Writing p. 96)

Is this book and introduction usable in this article?Simplywater (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Alex!! reverting.Good morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&diff=596834191&oldid=596572393

The more the better. The Scientific Statement of Being AND the tenets.... There is no conflict here Alexbrn. There is room for both ideas. Are there some religious/philosophical beliefs you should declare to us as to why it is difficult for you to be neutral here? The Christian Science tenets are tucked nicely in a reference where they will not take up any room.

The reader is coming to this page to learn as much about Christian Science as possible. The more ideas the reader can gleen about Christian Science beliefs the better, don't you think. Why not have both? There is room. The Scientific Statement of Being is present. There is no conflict in having both. There are 8 very sound sources that say the Tenets are the core beliefs.

This is the place to tell us why you don't want both present. The talk page. Here are the sources that say that the tenets are the beliefs of Christian Science.

• Religion in America, edited by Harold Rabinowitz page 148 —
• Melton, Gordon, The Encyclopedia of American Religions and Religious Creeds, pg 681, 1988
• Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures pg. 497
• Mary Baker Eddy, Manual of The Mother Church, pg 15
• Melton, Gordon, Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in American, pg 31
• Van Voorst, Rober, Anthology of World Scriptures pg 352
• Schoepflin, Rennie, Christian Science on Trail: Religious Healing in America pg 11
• http://christianscience.com/what-is-christian-science/basic-teachings

Tenets of Christian Science

* 1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.

• 2. We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.
• 3. We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts.
• 4. We acknowledge Jesus' atonement as the evi‐ dence of divine, efficacious Love, unfolding man's unity with God through Christ Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick and overcoming sin and death.
• 5. We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to uplift faith to under‐ stand eternal Life, even the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.
• 6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. And to be merciful, just and pure.Simplywater (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&diff=595173038&oldid=595172595

Since this discussion is continuing, should we provide a link to the archived discussions from last week? Or do I just rewrite the issues here again? Simplywater (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! My religious beliefs are beside the point (remember: WP:FOC!) – but if you must know, I am a lapsed pastafarian. You are right this article should be "about" CS. We write it by digesting the best of what the best secondary sources have to say, not necessarily by relaying what CS would say about itself. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the tenets is that they don't mean what they first appear to mean (that is, if readers assume the usual interpretation of the Christian terms). Alex, I was thinking of either adding a link to the tenets in the infobox under "scientific statement of being" (something like "Basic teachings", christianscience.com), or adding a sentence about the tenets somewhere in the text and that they can be misleading. Adding to the infobox would be easier. Would you object to that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think liking to them as "tenets" could work. The problem with the previous edit relaying them merely as "beliefs", is that it's not that simple: Melton relays them with surrounding commentary which paints a subtler picture. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for responding!! Sorry Slimvirgin to put so much more work on you. But, 5 difference sound academic sources included the tenets as the beliefs. I don't mind Melton's interpretation as long as we can include another voice along with it. Melton is good, but as a rather orthodox Methodist his view is just that 'a perspective'. We just put it out there in a way as fair as possible and let the reader decide.Simplywater (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: thanks, I'll add that link to the infobox for now (maybe "Basic teachings", christianscience.com). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If CS is panpsychist, it's got good company in recent philosophy (see the entry on Panpsychism). However, CS doesn't seem to be in accord with this paragraph:

"In contrast to "idealism", as this term is often used, panpsychism is not a doctrine of the unreality of the spatio-temporal world perceived through the senses, or its reduction to mere "ideas" in the human or divine mind. The constituents of this world are, for panpsychists, just as real as human minds or as any mind. Indeed, they are minds, though, in large part, of an extremely low, subhuman order. Thus panpsychism is panpsychical realism; realistic both in the sense of admitting the reality of nature, and in the sense of avoiding an exaggerated view of the qualities of its ordinary constituents. "Souls" may be very humble sorts of entities––for example, the soul of a frog––and panpsychists usually suppose that multitudes of units of nature are on a much lower level of psychic life even than that."

Consequently, while it may sound as if it is a form of panpsychism, I don't think CS is panpsychist in the sense of the Wikipedia entry. It's a form of theist monistic idealism, not panpsychism.Be-nice:-) (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Christian Science as panpsychism isn't really supported by the reference to Cunningham. He classifies Eddy's philosophy (I also think wrongly) as pantheistic, which paints with a much broader brush than panpsychic. To infer panpsychism from the reference, even by connotation, is a kind of original deduction. --Digitalican (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It was sourced to this. Has the source come adrift? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the source went adrift; I've restored it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something (which is certainly entirely possible,) that source is no longer referenced in context. Even so, the context is: "Perhaps the most radical form of idealism is the ancient Oriental spiritualistic or panpsychistic idea -- renewed in Christian Science -- that minds and their thoughts are all there is; that reality is simply the sum total of the visions (or dreams?) of one or more minds." That still seems a distance from classifying Christian Science as panpsychic (which I agree with Be-nice:-) that it should not be. Panpsychism does not map well into the "Scientific Statement of Being" as quoted in the infobox.) --Digitalican (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There a good article about the various forms of panpsychism here in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If the source gave a strong argument as to why Christian Science is panpsychism, that would be one thing. But this is nothing more than a passing thought. At most it is a minor opinon. But should not be listed as one of the 'beliefs" Simplywater (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that reference on panpsychism SlimVirgin. The Stanford Enc Philos is a great resource.Be-nice:-) (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I see elements in Reschel's summary that would seem to align with CS theology, and elements that would not. (It places an emphasis on the operation of mind, and in CS mind is to matter as water is to ice; the former constitutes the latter. Yet as Albanese notes, Eddy defined her term for temporal minds a "solecism" because those minds are ultimately or ontologically illusory; only Mind "and its infinite manifestation" exists, in infinitely individualized forms.) Yet I may not the best arbiter of that. More salient: what we individually think about whether Eddy's work aligns with this source or not is really beside the point and is rather OT (guilty as charged, as I've weighed in). Most salient: Reschel wrote that it does; his work is RS; and he is the only scholar to refer to CS in this way. All three need to be considered together. I have no problem retaining this reference, but its singular nature makes it an isolated source. These are "usually considered tentative" and not as reliable as others stating more commonly held views.

Because it's an isolated source, and not because of any viewpoint the quote does or doesn't espouse, I propose:

• Highlighting in the main text the "radical idealism" term that appears in every source cited here (and several others throughout the lit), and
• Moving Reschel to the fn with an appropriate comment (e.g., "While most scholars describe this position as radical idealism, Reschel moves beyond this common viewpoint to also suggest...").Ath271 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.Be-nice:-) (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as well. It's a question of what most accurately describes the philosophical view of Christian Science to the reader in the simplest way. The panpsychic reference must be maintained for the student interested in the internal contradictions between what Christian Science espouses and how it plays out in practice, "radical idealism" is most descriptive. --Digitalican (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Skrbina (2005) finds several panpsychist remarks in Plato, many fewer in Aristotle, and a general anti-panpsychist viewpoint coincident with the rise of “Aristotelian” Christianity that lasted until the renaissance. " (Perhaps much of the hostility to CS in mainstream Christianity derives from the philosophy of Aristotle rather than from the Bible itself?)

"...one of the central features of quantum mechanics is the existence of informational but non-causal relations between elements of systems. These relations are non-causal insofar as they are modulated instantaneously over any distance and do not involve the transfer of energy between the parts of the system. But they are informational in the sense that the changes of state of one part of the system seems in some way to be communicated to the other. There is no doubt whatsoever that such quantum systems can exist (they have been created in the laboratory) although the interpretation of them in terms of information exchange is contentious. For example, it is possible to create pairs of photons with correlated polarization states, such that, while neither photon is in a definite state of polarization prior to measurement, they must be discovered to be in opposite polarization states when a measurement takes place, no matter how far apart they are when the measurements occur. Such correlated particles are said to be “entangled”. It does not seem unreasonable to regard two such entangled photons as effectively monitoring each other's state of polarization. We can then use a theory of consciousness [...] to argue that a little monitoring makes for a little bit of consciousness. Furthermore, while entangled states are normally very delicate and susceptible to 'decoherence' caused by environmental disturbance, there might be certain systems that can resist decoherence and it has been conjectured that these systems are the physical foundation of more complex states of consciousness [...]. To follow this line of thought even further, the decoherence argument evidently collapses for the universe as a whole, which by definition cannot be disturbed by any outside force, so presumably the total universe is in one immensely complex entanglement..." As CS would put it, there is but one Mind: "All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all."

However, I still don't thing that panpsychism is the best description of the philosophy of CS. (It's certainly a radical form of monistic (theistic) idealism, but whether that's equivalent to panpsychism is another matter.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Should have mentioned that the above are two quotes from the entry on "Panpsychism" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Be-nice:-) (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've set the bot to archive faster to clear the page so that it's easier to use. If someone wants to create a separate page for sources, e.g. Talk:Christian Science/sources, we can link to that at the top of the page, rather than having it take up space here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I just wanted to make sure someone had used the different books suggested. Do you know which of the books that were suggested have been used in the article? I got a copy of Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age at the library. I'll give some different suggestions on quotes after I read it to see what may be useful. BTW. If I respond to your messaged on my talk page, do you see it? Or do I need to respond on your talk page?Simplywater (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You can respond on your talk page to anything posted there, and you can respond here to anything posted here. I'll see it in either place so don't worry about that. Would you like me to start a page listing sources that you can work on? As for the books already used in this article, if you look at the References section, you'll see the sources, or just do a search for the name of the author in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Simplywater, I appreciate the enthusiasm in your contributions, yet I'm concerned about the length and frequency of your posts. SV has had to speed up the archive bot to accommodate them. The page becomes full so quickly that important threads are lost and discussion is inhibited. I wonder if you would be open to studying and reflecting on the WP guidelines for Talk page use and good practices. This isn't to discourage you from contributing, but to encourage contributions that make this page easier to use, which benefits the article. Are you open to this? So many thanks for considering it.Ath271 (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

AbsolutelySimplywater (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks.Ath271 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Melton/Gottschalk article http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/115181/Christian-Science/8362/Significance mentions that the significance of Christian Science and the role it played in developing women place in the Protestant Church. Should a paragraph be devoted to this? I'm happy to do the research.Simplywater (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea to write something about CS and women, though I wouldn't use the EB article as a source (there are lots of scholarly sources available on this). My only concern is that the article is getting long, currently 10,600 words. Some of my recent editing has been to reduce length without losing content; I got it down by about 1,000 words. Separate articles would be nice on several issues: Christian Science theology, Next Friends Suit and Christian Science and women. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of sources that talk about CS, women and leadership in the late 1800's. I guess what is missing is a summery of the significance. From what I've been reading, scholarship points to the effect CS had in empowering women in religion and the effect the healing had on the Protestant faith, helping to move. especially women in Christianity. from a God who adores sickly suffering women to a God that heals.Simplywater (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Eddy has a huge feminist historiography that's available in the footnotes of recent scholarly lit. However as SV says, this should probably be a separate article, so now might not be the time to engage it. The content would need a clear place to live before developing it.Ath271 (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! Simplywater (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

For anyone interested in this, the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion is the top journal at the intersection of feminism and women's studies. It's not an area I can particularly comment on, but I can say that much. A considerable article could be written, then posted, by simply summarizing the arguments in each significant piece of lit as it appeared chronologically.Ath271 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just noting here that two editors have recently said on their user pages that they're working for the Christian Science church.

Bridge bendek (talk · contribs) acknowledged on 7 February that he's a media representative for the church, and volunteered not to edit the articles directly from now on. He wanted us to change the first sentence last year so that it didn't link CS to New Thought. He has also asked that we remove from Mary Baker Eddy that she was addicted to morphine.

Ath271 (talk · contribs) posted on 9 February on his user page that the Christian Science church is paying him to edit. Ath has made only two article edits so far (to the Eddy bio last year), introducing an error to the lead that Eddy was twice widowed. (She was once twice widowed and once divorced.)

In addition, Simplywater (talk · contribs) (who I don't believe worked for the church and the timing may be a coincidence) also recently focused, like Bridge Bendek, on the first sentence (among other things), wanting to remove that CS belongs to the metaphysical family of new religious movements. On 7 February a new account, Syllabub2 (talk · contribs), arrived to support Simplywater, which prompted SW to make the edit, claiming consensus.

I posted a note here last year to try to clarify what would count as a COI in the context of this article; see here in case it's helpful. The guideline is at WP:COI and the financial section is at WP:NOPAY. It says:

If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly. You may use the article talk pages ... to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits (see WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things).

I hope this helps. (Pinging Ath271 and Bridge bendek to let them know they've been mentioned.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it's correct that Eddy was twice widowed. Her first husband, whom she married at a young age, died when they were living in the South. Her second husband she divorced on the grounds of his infidelity. Her third husband predeceased her. Consequently she was twice widowed (and once divorced).Be-nice:-) (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

True, thank you, I missed out the second widowing. It was the missing divorce I wondered about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see the widowing issue has been resolved. Probably TMI, but dates in case they’re helpful: widowed 1844 (George Washington Glover); divorced 1873 (Daniel Patterson); widowed 1882 (Asa Gilbert Eddy).Ath271 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with the inclusion that some people consider it in the metaphysical family as long as it is also recognized that it is often treated with in the rubric of Christianity. The first sentence should be an non debatable fact. If you have to present an argument as to why Christian Science is considered metaphysical, that means it is contested. My understanding is that Wikipedia is here to present the facts, not make a case for one thing or the other. There are several of us that disagree with the first sentence. Consensus???? We should keep working at it until we all have a first sentence we can agree with. a sentence that doesn't favor on side or the other. Simplywater (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Many thanks, SlimVirgin, for the input re: COI and page history. It should help to clarify that the word “contribute” in my user profile doesn’t necessarily mean “edit.” Given the contentious nature of this page in the past, I’ve been assuming the opposite. I fully understand COI guidelines and related sensitivities on this page, and my sense of respecting them is to contribute neutral information to the Talk page. (As a side note, I had no issues with WP:NOPAY or WP:COI last year when editing the Mary Baker Eddy page. I was a fellow at an academic institution then.)

It’s also the case that I’m not an advocate, but an academic, and that my participation is on a warts-and-all basis. See Ath271 (talk · contribs) for details. My goal isn’t to represent a particular church viewpoint, but to represent the full range of current scholarship. This is where Bridge bendek (talk · contribs) and I differ. (Why the church is open to paying me to do this at this juncture is an interesting question that I have a few theories on, which I won’t elaborate here unless relevant.) But I’m still paid, and that requires managing COI. To reiterate, given this particular page’s history, we’re in agreement that this involves contributing to the Talk page.

I agree about the volume of posts made without the information at hand to convincingly suggest content changes. Anyone can and should participate, of course, as long as they conform to disclosure guidelines and other ethics. But adequate sourcing seems to be a perennial need. My purpose in contributing a literature review is to support WP:NPOV by “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”

Though I haven't been tracking this page for long, it's evident that it's in much better shape than it was a year ago. Yet several of my academic colleagues have noted that most sources considered standard in this field of study aren't represented here (and that they have no time to contribute suggestions themselves, a position I’m sympathetic to). It may be that it’s more useful here to go with the more standard approach of itemizing instances where sourcing could be improved. Unless there’s discussion on the range of lit I presented above or specific works, I’ll shift to that approach.Ath271 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ath, thank you for clarifying that. It would indeed be very helpful to hear suggestions for academic sources on particular issues; that is, if you could point out issues that need better sources, or anything important that's missing or poorly described. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, and sure thing. I'll consider this and contribute something before long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ath271 (talk • contribs)

On second thoughts, I feel uneasy about the presence of the Christian Science church on this page, and the suggestion in other threads that we use certain sources but not others. So I've struck my post above in case it puts me in the position of having invited the input. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. No invitation necessary. (I simply read that as showing respect for civil discourse without implying de facto acceptance of any input offered, and I appreciated both.) Yet I do hope this doesn’t imply that I’m not welcome. I’ll assume it doesn’t unless I hear otherwise.

Not sure what source-related threads are invoked here, so I’ll just note that my few comments have emphasized that whatever sources are used should be the best available according to WP:RS, not that any sources should be included or excluded on some other basis. If further clarification is needed on this, might you kindly say so? Many thanks.

Re: “the church," It's present here in the voices of adherents and ex-adherents, the cultural memories and impressions of observers, my voice as a contractor. This diversity and multiplicity is important. I’m not “the church”; I’m a scholar who has negotiated an independent contract with the church. It's natural for there to be questions about my participation that might evolve. I get that. I have some myself. However with the exception of official spokespeople (and I’m not one), churches include and hire individuals who speak from a variety of perspectives (and as in any normally functioning organization, often these don't remotely agree). Historians of churches are individuals who can’t speak for “the church,” but can speak only about what the church has done and how it has been historically perceived.

Also I'm aware that WP desires the input of scholar-experts even while having a complex relationship with them. I don’t assume a level of authority here above what others might find in their own research. At the same time, my input is serious, individualized, and ethical, and I hope that continues to become clear as I contribute (whenever and however I'm able).Ath271 (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Christian Science church seems to regard you as its representative on Wikipedia. Its media rep, Bridge bendek, has posted: "... because Ath and I both re-engaged on WP at the same time, I am going to take a break from the site." (Sorry, just noticed after I wrote this that he's repeated it below.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you SlimVirgin! Coming back on here if it's helpful to say that the church has asked Ath to provide scholarly support to this page so far as it's helpful and in line with WP rules. I left to defer to Ath because of Ath's expertise, not to make Ath an official spokesperson here. I'm happy to return to fulfill that role. Thank you! Bridge bendek ^COI 16:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Gah, I'd better respond here before the bot sweeps away this thread. Yes, if being an official rep here were part of my contractual agreement, I’d have to decline. The operative points in my case are that a) the church organization has agreed to give me full control of my own material here (they are not overseeing or editing any of it) and b) I’m not part of a team trying to establish control of this or any page but am simply contributing along with others. In WP terms, again, my participation is in line with WP:PAY. And again, I have my own observations about why the church is open to an arrangement like this at this juncture; happy to discuss if useful.

I’m fine with having Bridge bendek here if having a church spokesperson is helpful. If he’s not here, there isn’t one. Yet if anyone is disinclined to accept a comment or suggestion I’ve made because it appears to promote, advocate, or advance the interests of the CS church rather than the accuracy or neutrality of the page, or because it doesn’t appear to have scholarly merit, I welcome and encourage a description of how this is the case. The more specific, the better. I may have a good response that clarifies things; I'd hope so, but I may not. Or I may receive input that changes my views, which I always welcome.Ath271 (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ath, and welcome. It would be very useful if you could point to one or two academically-sound and non-aligned (non CS) sources that discuss Christian Science theology/philosophy accurately, objectively and thoroughly, preferably peer-reviewed sources (eg university presses). I stress the focus on theology/philosophy, not history or politics, as the former is what is seriously under-represented in the article. (For example Gill is seen as pro-CS, and Fraser is very much anti-CS. We need another option or two._ Thanks.Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Be. I'm not a philosopher or a theologian, so I know those literatures less well than historical material, but I can say with authority that CS is not well represented in either discipline. I can also say, however, that in the historical study of religion, theological points are routinely taken up in order to establish the motives and viewpoints of historical subjects. There is quite a bit of this type of inquiry in the literature above. I'll also reiterate that it's not the author's relative viewpoint (pro, con, or more often mixed) that marks their work as a reliable source on Wikipedia. It's the publication criteria and process, as you indicate; Wikipedia's goal is for pages to reflect a healthy array of sources that meet that criteria, regardless of authorial perspective.Ath271 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all! Thank you SlimVirgin - and thank you for all your hard work on this page! Sorry for the delay in responding here. Because Ath and I both re-engaged on Wikipedia at the same time, I am going to take a break from the site. Thank you! Bridge bendek ^COI 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - Adding COI is secondary to an editor which hopes to dominant a page. Wikipedia's first interest is serving its readers with a neutral perspective that includes a variety of view points. "COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content."Simplywater (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A person can be an adherent to, or believer in, CS without being a member of the CS church. Could that be clarified somewhere? (I can think of a number of people in my circle of friends/acquaintances who fall into that category. Extrapolating, there must be a considerable number in total.) While the CS church encourages people to join, it is fairly laid-back about membership and certainly doesn't make it as big an issue as some other churches do. Furthermore, there are two "levels" of membership: a Christian Scientist may be a member of a local (branch) church, of the Boston Mother Church, of both, or of neither. There are many people who are Christian Scientists who (a) have not got around to jointing the CS church; (b) don't intend to; or (c) were members at one time but left for whatever reason. Christian Science is basically a matter of self-identification rather than formal membership of an organisation.Be-nice:-) (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have a source, we could add something about it to the section about members. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little confused why information from Gottschalks books, which is considered controversial is not allowed in this article, but information from critical conservative Christians is? Slimvirgin, Who made that decision? Could you point me to the wiki rule that supports that? Simplywater (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The wiki article on Quimby, makes a great distinction between Christian Science and Quimby. Should the differences be mentioned? They list different sources

• http://www.phineasquimby.com/quimby_manuscripts.pdf.

‘Quimby’s son and defender said categorically, “The religion which [Mrs. Eddy] teaches certainly is hers, for which I cannot be too thankful; for I should be loath to go down to my grave feeling that my father was in any way connected with ‘Christian Science.’...In [Quimby’s method of] curing the sick, religion played no part. There were no prayers, there was no asking assistance from God or any other divinity. He cured by his wisdom.” (Dresser, Horatio W., ed. The Quimby Manuscripts. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company Publishers, 1921. - p436)

• Gillian Gill, page 159,

• Karl Holl

“That which connected her [Eddy] with Quimby was her conviction that all disease in the last analysis has its roots in the mind, and that healing therefore must be effected through mental influence. But it was her earnest Puritan faith in God that separated her from Quimby from the beginning.” (Karl Holl, German Historian), and A good composite of both Quimby, and the incompatibility of his ideas and practice with those of Eddy, can be found in these sources:

• Taves, Ann, Fits, Trances, & Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James. Princeton University Press 1999 (pp 212-218);
• Peel, Robert. Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery. Boston: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966 (chapter, “Portland 1862”);
• Gill, Gillian. Mary Baker Eddy. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Books, 1998 (pp 131-146 & 230-233). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 01:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Quimby section seems to be a bit weighted agaisnt' Eddy. Searching for neutrality. Again, there isn't any academic voice on the other side of the argument, even though that voice does exist in Gill and Ann Taves.

Gill -

• "As I shall show in the course of this book, the evidence that Mary Baker Eddy's healing theology was based to any large extent on the Quimby manuscrips is not only weak but largely rigged.
• "Dresser makes no suggestion that this type of healing involves tapping into a divine strength" page 159
• "In this chapter I have argued insistently upong the radical originality of Mrs. Eddy's work in Science and Health. Such a view swims against a strong anti-Christian Science current-"

It would be helpful to include Gill's findings.... If you need to balance Gill's quotes, I would take out her first quote in this section, because it really doesn't capture her argument. She says with regard to Milnine's finding

• "the problem with thie (their) line of reasoning is that it is untrue, and it is demonstrably untrue to anyone who holds a copy of Quimby's Questions and Answers in one hand and Mrs. Eddy's "Science of Man" in the other." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 23:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC) whoops sorrySimplywater (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There are 8 sources making reference to Eddy and plagerism. Fraser dismisses the Quimby charge, But there are several charges left with no response. The Mary Baker Eddy library has some interesting research on the 'taking offence' article - http://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/research/offenseSimplywater (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Since no one is responding, I'm guessing I'm free to make some edits. I have the Fits, Trances and Visions books on order at the Library. It would be nice to add some different sources. However, I am having a hard time seeing the neutrality in this section. It seems like a general free space for anyone who wants to throw out a charge against Mary Baker Eddy's writings.Simplywater (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I like SV’s idea above of starting a Talk page for sources if needed, but perhaps that's no longer required. I’ll assume so for now.

Re: Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults: This isn’t RS or a “religious reference book” in a normal sense. It’s published by a conservative Christian press that says the book will help believers in their “ministry and evangelism” to provide “a defense of the faith” and “true biblical theology,” and that it will give fundamentalist Christians “apologetics help.” I note that the WP page on this book presents it as neutral; the short summary there appears to be based on the title’s amazon description, which is the publisher’s description minus key details about the book's religious rationale. (It seems to be a ministry strategy of the publisher to present it as neutral to wider audiences.) So I can see how it would seem to be RS at first glance. This book is sometimes an object of academic study, but there ends its academic use.

Proposal 1: Because Martin is not RS, remove the reference to Martin’s book.

Proposal 2: Could keep the source in a footnote with text like, “Some conservative Christians have long defined Christian Science as a cult and developed ministry tools designed to combat it on theological grounds, chief of which is Walter Martin’s TKotC.”Ath271 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It might be in an article about the specific book, but general encyclopedia articles are not places to promote books or to give book reviews of every book remotely on the topic. Unless the book makes a specific claim in this article and fully meets WP:RS, it just will not fit in. "Ministry strategy" is not really a good hook here. Collect (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ath's proposal 1 or 2.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I infer from Collect's comments that Ath271's Proposal 1 is preferred. I agree. --Digitalican (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes -- thunk I was clear enough <g> Collect (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• The Kingdom of the Cults isn't named in the theology section as an RS, but as an example of a well-known religious reference book that includes CS as a cult (see the entry here). That's why its inclusion in the article has a secondary source, rather than being used as a source itself. The source is Philip Jenkins, Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History, Oxford University Press.

  There was one instance of it as an RS in the article (one of several sources in a bundled ref), which I've removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the bundled ref. And thanks for the clarification, helpful. Since Jenkins is the secondary source, shouldn’t he be named rather than Martin? And if kept in, shouldn’t the reference to Martin’s work be in line with how Jenkins refers to it?

Sorry so long below. Several overlapping issues here. Can skip to Summary and Proposal and revisit any details as needed.

Here’s the sentence in the article: “Several scholars continue to view it as a cult because of the rejection of medicine and the degree to which it departs from traditional Christian doctrine;[32] it remained listed in the 2003 edition of Walter Ralston Martin's (1928–1989) religious reference book, The Kingdom of the Cults.[33]” Martin is invoked here (grammatically and conceptually) as an example of the “several scholars” who continue to view CS as a cult. Modifying this to refer to the RS (Jenkins) should be fairly simple. So should ensuring that it reflects Jenkins’s view of Martin’s work.

Jenkins refers to Martin a few times, most succinctly as an example of several “Christian, usually evangelical, attacks on Christian and Christian-derived movements,” including Christian Science. Jenkins’s full description, on p. 51: “At least until the 1960s, the majority of books concerning cults followed this same pattern, comprising Christian, and usually evangelical, attacks on other Christian and Christian-derived movements. Standard books on cults included” Martin’s KofC (which Jenkins here discusses re: Jehovah’s Witnesses, but CS is included in the paragraph’s broader point). He continues (p.52), “For their Christian critics, the cults fell short of full or authentic Christianity.” And later (p. 59), “The main thrust of the attack” on Christian Science by orthodox and other critics “faded rapidly” after 1910, yet “even so, religious critics would long continue to denounce Christian Science as a cult, and as late as 1992 the church still merited a starring role in the latest edition of Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults.” Using any one of these quotes, or a snippet from it, would clarify Jenkins's view of Martin, which differs in key ways from that of the book's publisher.

Another main issue: The first half of the sentence also needs work to more accurately capture the work of the sociologists it cites. The sentence now says, “Several scholars continue to view it as a cult because of the rejection of medicine and the degree to which it departs from traditional Christian doctrine.” Actually:

• Jenkins often seems to agree with his early-20th-c. orthodox Christian sources that CS “departs from traditional Christian doctrine,” but this is not a feature he especially links to his view of CS a cult. His first chapter makes many suggestive and sweeping characterizations re: “Cults in American History,” but these descriptions are linked to specifics time periods, and it’s difficult to extrapolate from one to all. The closest he comes to defining 19th century cults is the fairly standard “select and separatist groups who looked to a prophetic individual claiming divine revelation” (p.4-5). This is in reference to mostly early 19th century groups, but he doesn’t get closer than this to CS temporally. He does link unorthodoxy to every group in the book, but no more or less than he links dozens of other descriptions to cult status.
• OTOH, Stark and Bainbridge do link the unorthodox aspects of CS to a proposed cult status; they are they only ones who specifically do this. And Simmons is the only one to argue the “cult” classification for medically-based reasons. They could be considered isolated sources and put in a footnote, or they could be treated as individual examples of a broader inclination among some NRM scholars to classify CS as a cult. Jenkins and Melton appear to simply use the term in its generic and contested classical sociological sense. This makes for some slippage in their texts between the scholarly and pejorative uses of “cult,” illustrating why this term is so heavily debated, but it’s certainly their scholarly prerogative to sidestep this debate. These are their books, and they can do what they wish in them. WP can’t invoke the same prerogative; it can point to the debate and explain it, which would improve the clarity of this paragraph. At the very least, WP can make sure not to engage in this same slippage.

Summary: Two sociologists describe CS as a cult for unique and differing reasons; another two do so more generically, in the contested yet classical sociological manner. In a parallel yet sometimes touching universe, some conservative Christian groups (signalled by Martin) continue to call CS a cult in the same sense used by the early clerics cited in the first half of the paragraph.

Proposal: Follow the sentence about A.H. Barrington’s piece on CS, Spiritualism, and Theosophy (a nice redux of points in Jenkins) with something like,

• “Some groups of conservative Christians continue to refer to it as a cult. Philip Jenkins notes that it remained listed in the 1992 edition of Walter Ralston Martin's (1928–1989) The Kingdom of the Cults, which Jenkins calls one of several books produced by “religious critics.” (p. 59)
  • Cite Jenkins, p. 59, in the footnote, along with the full quote (pasted/linked above).
  • Optionally, add to the fn any other quotes about Martin from Jenkins (pasted/linked above).
  • There's no RS to cite for this (since Jenkins published a decade prior and mentions the 1992 edition), but could note that CS remains in the 2003 edition of Martin’s book.
• Continue in the main text with something like, “Some present-day sociologists call CS a cult in the nominally non-pejorative (yet contested) sense found within their field of study, and they offer differing reasons for classifying CS this way.”
  • Link “contested” to the NRM WP page to give readers an accurate and current view of this debate.
  • Then continue either in the text or in the footnote, as space allows, with something like, “Simmons views CS as a cult because of its rejection of (conventional) medicine; Stark and Bainbridge cite the degree to which it departs from traditional Christian doctrine. Jenkins and Melton call CS a cult in the more generic sociological sense, without focusing on any one particular rationale.”
  • Actually, Melton's encyclopedia work should probably be cut, since it's a tertiary source and there are three others cited that are RS. But I'm not especially concerned with that.Ath271 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)(originally autostamped 16:59, 5 March 2014)

Thanks so much for the edits, SV. If you might note briefly here, as usual, when you edit based on Talk page input, that would be helpful. (I’m assuming this is best practice; just let me know if not. And apologies if you just haven’t gotten around to it yet.)

This sentence still remains: “It remained listed in the 2003 edition of Walter Ralston Martin's (1928–1989) religious reference book, The Kingdom of the Cults.”

The RS cited for this is Jenkins; but on the page the reference points to, Jenkins refers to the 1992 edition of Martin’s book. The sentence needs to be appropriately edited to reflect the source.Ath271 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition to the lead that it was one of the fastest-growing religions between 1900 and 1925, for two reasons. First, there was consensus to restrict the discussion of figures in the lead to what is there now; if we want to call it one of the fastest-growing the best place is at the end of the "First journal, first church building" section, which discusses membership figures during that period.

The lead already violates UNDUE by equating church estimates with independent ones, so to add anything about fastest-growing then, without mentioning the decline now, would make that worse (but the lead shouldn't be longer or more detailed on that point).

Second, the source actually says "far the fastest growing," not one of the fastest. And it's not clear that that's correct. Whorton is an historian of science, not religion, and he doesn't cite his source (it's Whorton btw, not Vorton, and The History of Alternative Medicine in America, not the history of American medicine in America). I think there are more appropriate sources who would have looked at the census figures and church memberships (I believe Melton discusses it and Rodney Stark certainly does). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the census sentence. That can go with the other numbers futher down. Since there is a very long discussion about CS being a cult under theology, it's fair to acknowledge, as discussed under 'denomination' it is also recognized as a denomination.128.223.146.128 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Simplywater (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Rodney Stark (1998) does indeed address it: "During the first several decades of the twentieth century, Christian Science was the fastest growing American religious movement." He has made a detailed study of the figures so he's probably the most appropriate source. I've added it to the "First journal, first church building" section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm answering this discussion under the 'denomination' section because that is where the references to this discussion are. Simplywater (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence starting "Eddy redefined terms... " didn't see a source for that. What is the source?Simplywater (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC

)

The most important point of that census is the one from 1926 says that Christian Science has been recognized by the U.S. Government as a denomination since before 1916. I think that is fair to include the reality, apart from those who are prejudiced against Christian Science. The First Church of Christ, Scientist is recognized as a denomination by the U.S. government. Some may call it a cult. But who gets to decide? The U.S. government calls it a denomination. The Christian Science denomination was founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879.

A footnote to the referenced page points out that statement was furnished by the Christian Science Board of Directors, not the U.S. Government or Census Bureau. --Digitalican (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I propose to add the sentence, slimvirgin you can decide where, "The First Chruch of Christ, Scientist is recognized by the U.S. government as a denomination" Some may not agree, but it is true.Simplywater (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is that documented as such? Although the U.S. Census has asked (on the long form) for religious self-identification. That does not seem to me to be the same as recognizing a denomination. I would suspect that it is not constitutionally possible for the U.S. Government to recognize a religious institution as more than an organization, without respect to affiliation. --Digitalican (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is on page 354 under denominational historySimplywater (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's from 1926 and the footnote on the page says the statement was provided by the CS Church Board. So we might use it to say that in 1926 the CS Church Board chose to characterize CS as a "denomination". But that's not worth saying in my view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9 Visas

"Practitioners and nurses of the Christian Science Church (Church of Christ, Scientist) may properly be considered as ministers of religion under INA 101(a)(27)(C). Readers and lecturers do not qualify as ministers, but could qualify as an alien seeking to come in a religious vocation or occupation. The Christian Science Church is considered a religious denomination with an organization in the United States." ^[2] http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87563.pdf

Christian Science practitioners are able to obtain R1 visas.

• "Religious workers include ministers of a religion who are authorized by a recognized denomination"
• The U.S. government defines denomination as having "a formal code of doctrine or discipline, religious services and ceremonies, some form of ecclesiastical government, a recognized creed and form of worship, religious congregations and established places of worship"

^[3] ALSO 9 FAM 42.32(d)(1) N1.1 Determining Bona Fide Organization http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87563.pdf

• The Salvation army and Christian Science practitioners may be considered ministers for an R1 visa^[4]http://www.immihelp.com/visas/religiousvisa/Simplywater

UTC)9 FAM 42.32(d)(1) N1.3 Practitioners and Nurses of Christian Science Church http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87563.pdf

(talk) 16:53, 19 February 2014

IRS from 4361 - Christian Science exemption from self employment tax

• Only ministers of recognized denominations can apply for exemption from self employment tax
• Christian Science practitioners are able to apply for exemption from self employment tax ^[5]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4361.pdf
• Christian Science is recognized as a denomination by the IRS.Simplywater (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Any good secondary sources discussing this? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are some. There are a lot of references on Law websites. Here are references from books http://books.google.com/books?id=TPs4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA366&dq=us+definition+of+denomination&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dewEU5DSM7OMyAH5nYHgCg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=us%20definition%20of%20denomination&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wC8Q-LMBkGsC&pg=PA154&dq=religious+visa+requirements+christian+science&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pe0EU8niPOO0yAHCl4CQDg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=religious%20visa%20requirements%20christian%20science&f=false "only individual authorized by a religious denomination...."

http://books.google.com/books?id=OO5L123r3kQC&pg=PA15&dq=religious+visa+requirements&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7u4EU6nvDOjcyQHN1YHoCA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=religious%20visa%20requirements&f=false "

Pg 90 http://books.google.com/books?id=QVxdDqOQnoMC&q=religious+visa+requirements+christian+science&dq=religious+visa+requirements+christian+science&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X_AEU_qKCOu-sQT9s4HQBg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwADgU

pg 60 http://books.google.com/books?id=WvNs4F3LFBcC&pg=PR37&dq=massachusetts+christian+science+religious+denomination&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G_EEU9LZE4i20AHYy4GADw&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=massachusetts%20christian%20science%20religious%20denomination&f=falseSimplywater (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

p.s The Christian Science Church is considered a religious denomination with an organization in the United States. is a direct quote from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87563.pdfSimplywater (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Simplywater (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Simplywater (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello??? Any object to me adding ---The Christian Science church is considered a religious denomination by US department of homeland security. Simplywater (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

sourced to which source exactly? I'm not seeing the significance? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The amount of hair-splitting going on is and has been unnecessary. Is Christian Science a religious denomination? Both the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and Department of Homeland Security say so, and Simplywater has documented that fact. (It is at least a debatable proposition as to whether Christian Science should be called a Christian Denomination, but that's another discussion.) My inference is that this speaks to the lead sentence about what Christian Science is over and above a set of beliefs and practices. That, in turn, reflects the indirect argument about the legitimacy (in the sociological sense) of Christian Science that has been going on for over a year here.

Are these U.S. Government documents academic peer-reviewed sources? Directly, no. Indirectly, yes. Are they arbiters of fact? I would find it hard to say that they are not. --Digitalican (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Significance

1. For me, the greatest significance is that there is a person who has been a part of this conversation for over a year and it matters to him. What are we doing on Wikipedia if we can't honor each other.
2. Words have meaning. 'cult, new religious movement, sect, denomination' all have different connotations.
3. in the eyes of the U.S. government, the word denomination communicates some sort of religious stability.
4. the U.S. government sees the significance of a group being a 'denomination' I.e. it carries a legal standing,
5. Wikipedia solicits all verifiable view points. Especially those that really matter to long time participants. RESPECT
6. The Federal Governments view point of the religious status of Christian Science is in the interest of Homeland Security.
7. Homeland Security in these pressing times is of utmost importance
8. we want to assure the wiki readers that Christian Science is not a National threat, a dangerous cult, or a terrifying sect.

The Christian Science Church is considered a religious denomination with an organization in the United States.http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87563.pdf I agree with Digitalican that the word 'denomination replace "beliefs and practices".Simplywater (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a quirk of the US visa system; unless there's some high-quality source discussing its significance in the categorization of CS, including it would be undue, as we have very good sources directly addressing that topic already. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There are those who consider it a cult. Yet still, the Federal Government, considers it a denomination. I don't think any of the secondary sources that have been presented suggesting that Christina Science is a cult would hold up in a court of law, thus denying a Christian Science practitioner a visa./ I'm trying to imagine the lawyer saying "but Melton says they are not a denomination but a cult". If your sources can't hold up in a court of law, it is not that high quality of a source. And it is this philosophical discussion of cult, sect ect which is just a meaningless quirk, don't you think? wiki wants all verifyable viewpoints to present all sides of an issue. This is one side of the issue don't you think?Simplywater (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC

ps. it is not just for visas. The government definition of denomination also influences the IRS and tax deductions and unemployment taxes. And that is not a meaningless quirk. We don't have to add everything. We can just assure anyone who may read this article, that for legal purposes, Christian Science is considered a denomination.http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4361.pdfSimplywater (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The relationship between the Christian Science church and the United States government over the years has been controversial (e.g. the religious exemptions, the categorization of Christian Science prayer, practitioners, nurses and homes as medical care for the purpose of insurance, the attempt to extend the copyright on Science and Health, etc). It could easily be a separate article. You're highlighting the danger of doing original research based on primary sources without having an overview.

You were arguing elsewhere that the article should be based on up-to-date mainstream scholarship, so please find some of that to support what you're saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I really really appreciate all the work you are doing.

I will find up-to date scholarship stating that Christian Science is a denomination. I understand textbooks are ok. Is that right?

Bring up any information you feel is important. i.e. government. I would rather that people read this article because it is interesting than pass it up because it is boring. Don't you think? AS long as there is up to date scholarship. This will is becoming a very great article.

Are books like Melton's Encyclopedia mainstream scholarship? I think the Oxford Encyclopedia says Christian Science is a denomination. Does that work? Is the McClure article so old that it has become a primary source?Simplywater (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The McClure's articles contain a lot of primary-source material (e.g. affidavits from people who knew Eddy). The articles themselves (and subsequent book) were a secondary source at the time of publication, and in a sense still are. They can also be regarded as a primary source because they were published in Eddy's lifetime, and so give us insight into the way she was viewed at the time.

Yes, Melton's work is mainstream. Christian Science is a new religious movement/cult/sect, depending on your perspective and vocabulary. It's not a mainstream Christian denomination. But these are just words, and you are focusing on them too much. I've tried to avoid getting into the church-sect-cult issue; I did at one point start a sub-section in response to your posts, in an effort to accommodate your Kinnamon material and place it in perspective, but it was a mistake and I undid it. The current version has just one paragraph in the theology section saying that it was viewed as a cult during Eddy's lifetime, and one sentence saying that several scholars continued to view it as a cult. I think we should leave it there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, thank you for taking the time. I do really really appreciate this. But these words mean something to some people.

My understanding is the Encyclopedias may be used if sourced. More important, these two men had to work together to write the article. It may give some insight on what is neutral. I wonder what their discussions were like as they sorted out the wording? Does this count as a source? Looks like in his later writings, Melton changed his mind and Christian Science is a denomination. Simplywater (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Melton, Gordon and Gottschalk, Stephen - Encyclopedia Britannia, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/115181/Christian-Science/8362/Significance

Christian Science, religious denomination founded in the United States in 1879 by Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910), author of the book that contains the definitive statement of its teaching, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1875). It is widely known for its highly controversial practice of spiritual healing.... (50 of 2,341 words)

BTW the article was last updated December, 2013. Gottschalk has passed on. I guess Melton could have removed the word denomination, but he didn't. What is the date of the Melton writings you are using?Simplywater (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Gottschalk was a Christian Scientist; we can't place anything he has authored or co-authored in WP's voice (unless it's entirely uncontentious, but then better to find a different source). SW, I'd like to request that you not engage in any more cherry-picking or focus on labels: someone called Christian Science an X, and you like X, therefore Wikipedia must call it an X too. Melton classifies CS in his scholarly work in a variety of ways, most recently as a member of the "Western esotericism" family. CS is also linked by some scholars to the occult; shall we add that too? I really hope this concentration on labels will end, or at least give us a break from it, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm good getting rid of all the labels. Should we take the 'cult' word out all together go get rid of all the labels? Simplywater (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Gottschalk - My understanding is that once a book has been peer reviewed, an authors religion is no longer the issue for true scholars. While we wouldn't want too many quotes from one source, an author's religion should not prejudice us against him. That is my understanding.Simplywater (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Melton calling Christian Science a member of "Western esotericism". Love to read it!!! Looked for that source and couldn't find it. Could you give me the name of the book? Because he includes Christian Science in his "Encyclopedia of Protestantism"Simplywater (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Need a little help understanding why having references that call Christian Science labels like cult, heretic, pantheism, gnostic, spiritualism, theosophy, hindu, ect is not controversial, but using references from academics who use the word 'denomination' or 'christian' is controversial? I'm at a loss here.Simplywater (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked at other pages and they allow laws as source materials. Since there is a reference to Christian Science being a cult, shouldn't we include the academic voice that labels it a denomination?Simplywater (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to know where to post in this section, which is long and includes several topics. Two main points:

SW, please do drop the “denomination” concept. You’ve brought in several interesting sources, but overall they don't add up to enough to constitute a significant scholarly view.

Classifying CS according to scholarship is a matter of the relative weight of the sum total of sources. Some sources are what WP calls “isolated.” Thus (to pull on threads on this page) some RS call CS a “denomination,” but not enough to make the cut here. One scholar calls CS a “community of dissent,” but the term is unique to him. Melton might call CS a type of "Western esotericism,” but he’s essentially alone in this. These are all isolated references.

Amending my view here. SW brings out 3 RS below, which is fine by me.Ath271 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SV, I wouldn’t voice discomfort re: the term “cult” on a personal level. And this isn’t an isolated usage. But it’s hard to avoid how broadly contested this term is in the overall lit. I count three mentions in the article; the snippet in the theology section re: how some researchers viewed it as a cult during MBE’s lifetime is great. Overall, agreed and very solid. The other two mentions should reflect the term’s deeply contested status. The term shouldn’t be scrubbed to accommodate religious discomforts, but it should be qualified to note scholarly variety and discrepancy in its use. Common practice says that it shouldn't be used as a neutral term without caveats, qualifications, notes. (At academic conferences, I've never heard it used without air quotes.) WP:NRM lists plenty of sources to show this.Ath271 (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Very helpful.Simplywater (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if this is an academic source, but it makes reference to the 'cult' vs 'religious movement' debate.

Davis, Derek, New Religious Movements and Religious Liberty in America - Speaking about using the word 'cult'. ^[6] http://books.google.com/books?id=up5fnY7Wp1wC&pg=PA92&dq=use+of+the+word+cult+new+religious+movements&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TkwPU7msFarp0AHs2oGoBg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=use%20of%20the%20word%20cult%20new%20religious%20movements&f=false.

The sterotype implies that all unconventional religious groups are the same. when in fact they are vastly diverse in their characteristics, and most of them do not break the law or commit violent acts. "Cult" is a four letter word that communicates hatred and prejudice just as much as racial and anti-Semetic slurs and other various ugly words against women and gay people. Applying any pejorative label to a group can dehumanize them, make it appear to be legitimate to discriminate against them, deprive them of their civil and human rights, and kill them. (page 92)Simplywater (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Alh271, but I disagree about dropping the discussion about using the word 'denomination'. Especially from a woman's study perspective. Eddy, is considered to be one of the few American women, to found their own religion. Let along world wide. To dismiss that place that she and a handful of other women hold in history is not very insightful. WP wants important view points represented. From a woman's study perspective, while we don't need to elaborate, Eddy's feat of founding a denomination is note worthy. Especially if the movement is going to be called a 'cult' three time.

Christian Science is known as being one of the few American denominations founded by a woman.

Christian, Kevin, Sociology of Religion. Contemporary Developments (Page 190 )

"At the same time two entrprenuai women were instrumental in founding new denominations. Mary Baker Eddy in the case of Christian Science and Ellen G. White with the Seventh Day Adventists"http://books.google.com/books?id=EYtjY7GJav4C&pg=PA190&dq=denominations+founded+by+woman+eddy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tFUPU--lAeKZ1AHj1ICABw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=denominations%20founded%20by%20woman%20eddy&f=false

Oppenheimer, Mark; Knocking on Heaven's Door: American Religion in the Age of Counterculture, Yale Press (page 134)

were preaching and some like the Pentecostal Aimme Semple Mc Phersm, the Shaker Ann Lee, The Seventh Day Adventist Ellen Gould White, and the Christian Scientist Mary Baker Eddy, founded their own denominations.http://books.google.com/books?id=7j6wzn4Aoz8C&pg=PA134&dq=denomination+founded+by+women+eddy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lVwPU97vMO-50AGF4YGoBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=denomination%20founded%20by%20women%20eddy&f=false

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

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

Help me understand why it is not worth pursuing the inclusion that Christian Science is one of a handful of denominations founded by women. Especially since WP wants all significant view points. I consider this a significant viewpoint from a woman's study perspectiveSimplywater (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I'll think about it. I wouldn't link the term directly to women's studies, though; none of the sources above come from that field. Each of the authors simply uses the term in the context of new religions founded by women, which may well be incidental. There are plenty of sources that discuss this same set of religions and note the gender of the founders without using the term "denomination."Ath271 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: when I say maybe you're right, I mean maybe this term has a higher frequency of use than I'd realized. I think SV is right that the term "cult" (in the technical or sociological sense) has a higher frequency of use than I'd realized; this is a disciplinary split (it's been banished to the sidelines in most humanities subfields where I work but appears to be retained more in sociological subfields, though not without piles of accompanying footnotes, a situation the article should reflect. I'll think about this more, too.) If nothing else, all of this may show that the terms denomination, NRM, new religion, emergent religion, etc. are used more or less interchangeably, and the term cult sometimes is used as an equivalent, too, though not unproblematically.Ath271 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've thought about it. Amending to conclude that all the ways scholars generally describe minority religions - denomination, NRM, sect, cult when specified properly, etc. - should be represented in the article. Not a big deal. None should be favored, excluded, or further belabored.Ath271 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I found 14 different sources that call Christian Science a denomination. Everything from dictionary uses, Encyclopedia's (Brittania) to books about Christianity. Including "The Idiots guide to Christianity" We don't want to mislead the readers, Christian Science is not viewed by mainstream American as a cult. Even the Wikipedia pages refer to it as a denomination. ie

New Religious Movements - "Generally, Christian denominations are not seen as new religious movements; nevertheless, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Shakers have been studied as NRMs"

The page refers to Christian Science either being thought of as a cult, developed as a cult 3 different times. Each of these references are by fairly orthodox writers. On the other hand, well known publishers like Yale Press, and Oxford Press, are calling it a denomination. It is fair to also mention in some way that many consider it a denomination. It is thought of as a cult by the minority, not the majority of educated thinkers. 1. from a legal point of view it is a denomination. OR 2. from a historical point of view it represents a denomination founded by a woman OR 3. "It was the fastest growing denomination at the begining of the 20th century"

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

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

SV, does that work for you?Simplywater (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

SW, a few points:

• Of the 14 source you’ve found, most (dictionaries, encyclopedias, Idiot’s guide, etc.) are not RS in WP terms.
• Christian, Oppenheimer, and Vorton are all RS. These don’t show that a majority of Americans or a majority of people with an advanced education classify CS as a denomination. (No existing study shows either point.) Further, these don’t prove that scholars or critics never refer to CS as a cult.
• However, this collection of RS does show that some scholars refer to CS as a denomination. Do you have a specific proposal for where to include this in the article?Ath271 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I do,

Between 1900 and 1925 Christian Science was one of the fastest growing denominations in the United States"^[7] A census at the height of the movement's popularity in 1936 counted nearly 270,000 Christian Scientists in the United States;

This works because this covers the range of names that are attributed to Christian Science. Religious Movement, Cult, Denomination. What still concerns me is the amount of space given to the 'cult' label. 8 sentences. This is a minor view point. As I have shown above, the US government does not consider it a cult. It is not on the list of potentially dangerous movements in the United States. So I feel the weight of discussion about the cult issue is a bit overboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Simplywater (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd vote for a sentence like that, or just for tossing in the word "denomination" occasionally. Proportionately to its use in the lit.

No need to make a big deal about it, or any other terminology that scholars don't make a big deal out of themselves. E.g. this doesn't suggest that most Americans or scholars see CS as a denomination, which seems to have been what much of this section argues. But that's not reflected in a neutral sentence like this. I'm fine with it.Ath271 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, do you want to weigh in on this discussion. Then, this article will touch on the basic 'labels' for Christian Science. But since, event he New Religious Movement page refers to Christian Science as a denomination, it seems most neutral to consent that there is a segment of society that refers to it as a denomination. The sentence above is well sourced and fits in naturally to the page70.56.18.125 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Simplywater (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Since all the the edits I have made have been reversed, it would be nice to know objections here instead of entering into an editing war. Are there objections?Simplywater (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Slimvigin, Again, my edit was undone to remove the word "denomination" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&diff=598594858&oldid=598593318 and replace it with 'religious movement'

It would help if I understood your objection to such a term? Perhaps you can see how the choice of scholars you are choosing, colors this article

• Alt27, Digilaigian and I all agree that it is appropriate, given the number of sound sources that call Christian Science a denomination, to include that word "occasionally".

Here's one example of how it could be done. Wiki article.

Two periods of Protestant Christian revival known as the Second and Third Great Awakening (c. 1800–1830 and c. 1850–1900) nurtured a proliferation of cults and sects in the United States, including Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Adventists, Spiritualists and Swedenborgians.[11]

Replaced with

"Revivalism and the work of charismatic leaders had also been an important source of new denominations contributing not only to the schims of the Great Revival period earlier in the century but also to the later emergence of such denominations as the Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Science, Salvation Army, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Pentecostal Holiness Church." ^[8]

Slimvirgin, instead of reversing my edits that use the word "denomination" could you articulate your objection to that use?

RE - Jenkins. Just discovered the Jenkins actually refers to Christian Science as a respectable and recognized denomination. The quotes this pages uses overlooks his views so I added them. How interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&diff=599635221&oldid=599481806Simplywater (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Bryan Wilson, Sects and societies also refers to Christian Science as a denomination.Simplywater (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed some of Melton's encyclopedias were being used.

Just trying to get an understanding of encyclopedias. It says Encyclopeidic content must be verifiable. Is this usable

Encyclopedia of Protestantism, Routledge, Hans Hillerband editor,Simplywater (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, SW, it's as usable as any other encyclopedia published by an academic press. If you're unsure, google the press name and read to find out if it's an academic imprint. All encyclopedias are considered tertiary sources on WP and should be used only in overviews, not in detailed discussions.Ath271 (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)