Talk:Church of Christ, Scientist/Archive 2

A long review
Having been born and raised a Christian Scientist and now working for a museum in Boston dedicated to preserving and accurately portraying the history of Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Science movement I can tell you that there are a lot of things wrong with this article. There is much more wrong with this discussion page, but I'll get to that in a bit. I guess I'll start at the beginning and work my way down.

Intro Firstly, churches are known as Church of Christ, Scientist. When Mrs. Eddy founded the church she just wanted to call it the "Church of Christ" but that name was already taken. The first church established in a city is called the First Church of Christ, Scientist, usually followed by a city name. As more churches are built they get more numbers. For example in downtown Chicago there is 17th Church of Christ, Scientist. The church is just "Church of Christ, Scientist.

In all my life as a Christian Scientist I have never referred to it as the "Christian Science Church," or heard it referred to in that way, but maybe that's a popular way for others outside movement to call the church. Christian Science is the religion. Is this article about the church or the doctrine of the religion?

"is a religion generally considered to be a Christian denomination." Generally? Let's get specific. It is a Christian denomination. Anyone that would argue otherwise is doing so because their religious beliefs differ from ours. World wide CS is considered a Christian denomination, so let's drop the generally. "with The First Church of Christ, Scientist being the headquarters" First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, MA being the headquarters. This church is also commonly referred to as the mother church. This comes from the practice of followers affectionately calling Mrs. Eddy "Mother," although much to her chagrin.

The church does not "support" the Principia College. The college exists on its own; the church does not provide funds or advertise the school. Not to make the impression that the church is against the school, but the school is its own private entity. Principia is also a private school for K-12 in St. Louis, MO.

The church does have a Board of Education that oversees and certifies CS teachers.

"which she believed to be the result of her Christian faith." I can't blame you for being wrong, I get the feeling that the article wasn't written by a Christian Scientist. As a student of CS I would say "which was a result of God's care." or "which was a result of her prayers." In either case this brings up a good point. People that don't understand the religion think that we're all wackos. They feel that our healings are just natural and that we're reading into them something that isn't there. Should this article represent the outsider's view of the religion or should it represent the religion from an insider's view?

If you don't believe what I do, if you haven't bothered to even look at the resources available, open your mind, and actually try to understand a little bit more about the religion, then why should you feel able to write a complete and accurate article?

"The Bible and Eddy's book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures are together the church's key doctrinal sources (they are called textbooks within the denomination)." Nothing terribly wrong with this. S&H is called the textbook; the bible is called the bible. Together the bible and S&H are also the churches only pastors.

"The First Church of Christ, Scientist is widely known for its publications, especially the Christian Science Monitor, a daily newspaper published internationally in print and on the Internet." Ok.

The Church is controversial for its encouragement of prayer for healing when others might choose modern medicine and its doctrinal deviations from orthodox Christianity. I suppose this is what it is controversial for. However, specifying orthodox Christianity is questionable. Considering there are three main branches of Christianity: Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, some may say you're arguing that CS isn't Christian because it isn't a part of Eastern Orthodoxy.

However, should this be considered at all? I would argue no. It has nothing to do with the church. This "controversy" is simply people of other religions bickering among themselves, which is better than going to war over it. I like this note from List_of_Christian_denominations: "Between denominations, theologians and comparative religionists, there are considerable disagreements about which groups can be properly called Christian denominations. These disagreements rise primarily from doctrinal differences between different groups. For the purpose of simplicity, this list is intended to reflect the self-understanding of each denomination."

I think it's also important to note that by definition a Christian religion is a religion that is "Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’ teachings." Christian Science is Christian. Anyone that took even a minute to read the 6 tenants of the church would know this. "Christian Science has no connection with Scientology, which was founded about 75 years after Christian Science and which is not based on Christianity. It is also not connected to Religious Science, a recent denomination in line with the New Thought tradition." Both true.

You know, I could go on through the whore article this way.

Really, if you wanted me to I could see in anyone at the museum has some time to really go through and fix this article to make it historically and theologically accurate. Jonamerica 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a Christian denomination.
 * The objection to calling it a Christian denomination was strong enough, in a few circles, that it was put it in NPOV dispute over that. I tried to think of a way to acknowledge that without agreeing with them it should not be linked to Christianity at all. Well that and other things I'll deal with below. It's a temporary way of dealing with that, not meant to be permanent.--T. Anthony 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Should this article represent the outsider's view of the religion or should it represent the religion from an insider's view?
 * Well ideally I don't think it should be purely "insider" or "outsider." Either one would lead to biases. It should be some kind of compromise/concord between members and non-members. If it's too insiderish it loses neutrality. If it's all critical outsiders, same deal.--T. Anthony 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This "controversy" is simply people of other religions bickering among themselves, which is better than going to war over it.
 * Well here's where I disagree. The Church of Christ, Scientist is mostly in majority Christian nations. Therefore how mainstream Christianity has viewed this religious denomination is certainly germane. I don't see how you can just dismiss that. Therefore relationships or tensions with other Christian denominations I think has to be mentioned. That includes those who reject the idea it is Christian from Biblical or conciliar interpretations. I think I veered to close to validating those opinions in order to placate a particularly noisy person, so I'm good with altering that without deleting it.--T. Anthony 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By definition a Christian religion is a religion that is "Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus' teachings."
 * I'm afraid it is actually more complicated than that. Islam and Bah'ai would both say their faith is related to Jesus's teachings. They might even say derived from. Cao Dai I think would too. Christian Science does not believe in any Prophet or Messiah after Christ so I think this isn't like that, but to simply say "Relating to or derived from Jesus's teachings" is probably too broad.--T. Anthony 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I could see if anyone at the museum has some time to really go through and fix this article to make it historically and theologically accurate.
 * Religious articles are very tricky. By and large Wikipedia is a truly cruddy source of information on almost any religion. Still it does allow for improvement so in time their record may improve on this issue. Despite disagreements I have with your view I think it's important someone actually of this faith work on it. I don't think it should be an "insider's" article, but I think insiders should be involved and their opinion respected.--T. Anthony 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the article should show both points of view; however, when arguments are used that are based on ignorance, and people just agree with them because that's the popular or understood view, I think it's important to defer to the person who has the most knowledge on the subject. If wikipedia has existed when Copernicus was around we might have an article that said the universe revolved around the earth while one person with the contrary evidence was lambasted. I think it's important that as an encyclopedia the article strive to have the most accurate information.
 * I can give you some real examples of arguments I've read in this talk page.
 * CS isn't Christian because they don't believe in the Trinity: We believe strongly in the Trinity, the second tenet, which any CS church member has to follow states: 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. To some this may not be emphatic enough, but we do believe in the trinity.
 * CS doesn't believe in death, therefore they don't believe in the crucifixion: Oh come on! Of course we believe in the crucifixion. CS sees a difference between material and spiritual life. We see the Spiritual life as real, the material as unreal. The Spiritual life is eternal, it is the life of Christ, and He was resurrected to prove everlasting life, to prove that there is no death. Jesus, which is the material man that Christ embodied, died on the cross. We believe that life is in Spirit, not in matter, we don't believe that matter is real, and therefore neither is death. In the Spiritual life you live with God in perfection, life is already complete and whole, and life is eternal.
 * I'm sorry I got all religious there, but arguments based on ignorance need to be corrected.Jonamerica 13:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm it does sound like these need correcting. It does sound a bit different, but "does not believe" is apparently way off the mark. If it hasn't been corrected I'll see what I can do.--T. Anthony 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was raised in Christian Science and am now a Christian. I do not consider Christian Science to be a Christian denomination.  It rejects many facts of the Bible such as the deity of Jesus.  You wouldn't be considered to be His disciple if you are greatly unclear as to who He is.69.108.111.102 04:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the least informative pages I have read
Having just read the CS article, I feel i learned nothing about the practice, and was just told of many other places to read about it. This was one of the least informative pages I have read on wikipedia, which was very surprising considering the amount of talk on the this discussion page. I think that trying to appease both CSs and non-CSs has ended up filtering this article of any useful information. I thought I should just bring this up. 20 January 2006 64.141.132.42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.132.42 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This comment was put at the bottom of the above section, I'm moving it here as it is a new comment. Jonamerica 21:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree this isn't one of their best articles. I'm not sure I know enough on this to fix it. I only started learning, some, about this religion while working on a research paper concerning Nancy Astor.--T. Anthony 00:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

A thought
I guess what bothers me the most about this article is that it buys into many of the misconceptions about CS. I too was raised as a Christian Scientist and wikipedia should reflect what people who practice the religion believe about it. You are then free to put at the bottom what some people dispute about it but by taking the middle ground you are not actually stating what we believe or what the foundations of the religion are. I think wikipedia is a great resource but I think it is important for you to put forth the facts of the religion forth from those that actually believe in it. We are in a better position to explain the tenets of CS and what they mean to us than someone who does not practice the religion. While I understand your taking the middle of the road theory in religion you can't really do that. You can only state the religion from one view and then state it from the other you can't blend the two. They need to be seperate sections. Have the facts of the religion (founded, names, history, etc... in one section) Beliefs as we see them in another. (our museums would be happy to help you there). And then the things that are disputed or disagreed with in a third section. This is the only truly fair way to explain this religion without confusing everyone.

Susan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.213.55 (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's worth considering. There was unfortunately no Category:Christian Science Wikipedians, although I just created it, so if we wanted to contact Christian Scientist Wikipedians to help here we really had little or no way to know how to do that. Even Wikimedia's list of Wikipedians by religion includes no Christian Scientists. (I might create a category though)--T. Anthony 09:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why so angry?
Why are you so angry? Why, if you are truly Christian, are you not just educating us in the facts about your religion? Wouldn't that be more effective, and perhaps, more in line with the teachings of your religion? To have faith? -24.251.66.230 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.66.230 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who this was directed at. I don't think either my reply or Susan's reply showed any signs of anger. As Christian Scientists we're used to people having misconceptions about our religion. I am working on updating this and other CS related articles; however I also have a full time job. Of course I'm slightly curious why you made such an inflammatory remark anonymously. Jonamerica 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge
The article on Christian Science has recently been revised. While that article could be expanded greatly I feel that this article should mainly focus on the church and its infrastructure and leave the article entitled Christian Science to focus on the doctrine and beliefs of the religion. For this reason I am proposing the merge suggestion be removed. Jonamerica 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On a further note I've made the recommendation that the page First Church of Christ, Scientist be merged with Church of Christ, Scientist since they both cover the same topic, this article to a much more extensive degree. Jonamerica 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Or maybe the First Church of Christ, Scientist article can be modified (or even renamed) to focus only on the First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, an important landmark in this city that I feel deserves an article of its own. --Mihai 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The correct title, which is stressed strongly by the church manual is "The First Church of Christ, Scientist" the word 'the' must be in the name as required by MBE in her manual. Branch churches, on the other hand, never use the word 'the' in their name.  If the artical is about the mother church, it should properly have 'the' in its name. WilliamKF 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

6 Months Later, Jonamerica's good suggestion hasn't been acted on. The material in both articles overlaps considerably (this article would seem to be the better of the two.) I agree there may be two articles here, but the material needs to be separated into distinct catagories of beliefs and practices on the one hand, and the church as an organization, on the other. So, I want to renew the call for a merge. Digitalican 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am strongly opposed to merging the entries on "Christian Science" and "Church of Christ, Scientist". Christian Science is a metaphysical teaching based on *Science and Health* by Mary Baker Eddy. Students of Christian Science may, or may not, be members of the Church of Christ, Scientist. There is no mention of such a church in the key Christian Science text, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, and indeed MBE only reluctantly went down the road of religious organization. Merging "Christian Science" and "Church of Christ Scientist" would make as much, or as little, sense as merging "Physics" with "Harvard University".89.100.141.143 12:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some reorganization clearly needs to be done. Currently the [Church of Christ, Scientist] article includes information that ought to be included in the [Christian Science] article.  (Some of it considerably better and better written than that in the Christian Science article.)  In other words it already does not conform to your sense of how things should be organized. I would propose a two step process:
 * Merging the information in the two articles.
 * Separating that information out into an article on the Christian Science belief system and an article on the Christian Science Church as an organization.
 * Along the way we could also merge in the Scientific Statement of Being pages, which are redundant and could be easily handled with a redirect. We could, as well, get rid of some of the argumentative cruft on both sides which makes the pages less like encyclopedia articles and more like a usenet news group (which, to my understanding is not the purpose of Wikipedia.)  Digitalican 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My vote is to not merge. CS and the church are clearly two different things. Christian Science exists only in thought. The Chruch is a human organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashville (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. We won't merge.  I will, however, take the liberty of moving contact around to reflect the desires of the people who voted here.  Topics on Theology go to Christian Science, topics on the church organization go to Church of Christ, Scientist.  That's a fair amount of moving information around but I think we can do a whole lot better if we revert the POV fork.  Digitalican 00:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A vote for not merging plus an observation.
 * Searching "Christian Scientist" sent me to the Church of Christ, Scientist Page. I was looking for what appears on the Christian Science page.  Isn't that a better place to read about a Christian Scientist?  I was not interested in the organization but of those who practice Christian Science... Dallas 75205 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Note on "Public Controversy"
It should be noted that while studies have been done concerning the effect of prayer on healing, no such studies have been made concerning Christian Science specifically. Unfortunately, the very nature of how such studies are carried out makes it extremely unlikely that one will ever be conducted. First and foremost, a Christian Science Practitioner may not provide a treatment for a patient unless the patient requests treatment, or someone else does so on his behalf (like if a patient is unable to make such a request). Prayer is certainly an option, but the way it is carried out is different, and in important ways. My own father is a CS practitioner, and the way he has described it to me is as follows: A Christian Science treatment, as carried out by a practitioner, seeks to address the thought of the patient concerning (whatever the treatment is for, be it illness, injury, personal problems, etc). For this, it is deemed neccesary to recieve permission from the patient. Lacking such permission, it is still certainly possible to address one's own thought. For an example, let's say that "Jack" has the flu. If he asks his CS friend to treat him, the Christian Scientist will concentrate his prayers on Jack's view of the circumstances, i.e. helping Jack to fully understand the "truth" concerning his illness (the "truth" is exceedingly complicated, and I am not qualified to try to explain it). If Jack does not request a treatment, the CS friend can instead address his own thought, to see the truth concerning Jack's illness. The distinction may seem minor to those not familiar with CS, but it is very important.

Ultimately, my point is that existing studies concerning the effectiveness of prayer are poor guides for judging the effectiveness of CS treatments because there is an enormous difference between prayer as most people view and apply it, and prayer as it is applied by a practicing Christian Scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shep pb4y (talk • contribs) 04:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * New religion: "A" is started by someone who was having really bad gas while on the toilet and now claims that the "ultimate power in the universe" spoke to him and he wrote them down on toilet paper, now referred to as, "the holy documents." The holy documents state that when a member of religion A passes gas, and they think about a person who is ill or who has sustained an injury, that person is healed! > Seriously, please note that no study is required to determine the efficacious of religion A's "healing method," or any religion's "healing method." Organized religion is one of mankind's most horrificly evil inventions, responsible for more murder and rape than nearly any other human phenomenon outside of nationalism. Religions do not "heal" anything or anyone that can't be written off as no better than placebo. Sigh..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.67.160.249 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Just The Facts Ma'am
"which she believed to be the result of her Christian faith." ''I can't blame you for being wrong, I get the feeling that the article wasn't written by a Christian Scientist. As a student of CS I would say "which was a result of God's care." or "which was a result of her prayers."''

I'm sure you would phrase it that way. However, it would be a statement of your belief (and her's) that the woman in question was healed by direct, divine intervention. It would be an opinion put forth as a fact. "which she believed to be the result of..." is a factual account of what she believes happened, without speculating on how accurate her opinion was. In short, the phrase currently in the article is fine, because it sticks to the facts of the matter.

"In either case this brings up a good point. People that don't understand the religion think that we're all wackos. They feel that our healings are just natural and that we're reading into them something that isn't there."

I've never heard of this religion until I came across this article, so I don't think you or other followers of this regliion are wackos. People can disagree on their interpretation of events without thinking the other person is "wacko".

"Should this article represent the outsider's view of the religion or should it represent the religion from an insider's view?"

Neither. A simple, factual accounting will be fine. That's the point of this project, isn't it?

-Mike 08:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.246.150 (talk)


 * Hi--
 * I think that the distinction, most obvious to a Christian Scientist, is that Mrs. Eddy never claimed it was "faith" that healed her. Her religion is not a religion of faith, but of research, prayer and study.
 * It is, of course, fine for someone NOT of the religion to edit the topic. However, it would make sense if the post reflected the religion. Mary Baker Eddy made a clear distinction between faith-healing and healing via Christian Science.
 * Phare Play
 * March 26, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.100.249 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Christian Science" should not redirect here
Hi--

I've been doing some editing on the article on "Christian Science" and I find that when you click on "Christian Science" you go first to "Church of Christ, Scientist." I have no objection to a person being able to link to "Church of Christ, Scientist" from the entry on "Christian Science," but having to go directly to the former when one is trying to find out about the latter is not appropriate I think. Many people who practice CS are not, for one reason or another, members of the CS church. Could whoever has inserted this code please remove it?

Thanks!

Paul 10 March 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.174.222 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to "A Long Review"
If it doesn't portray things accurately, edit it! That's the beauty of Wikipedia.

waves to his friends doing a research paper on CS. Yes, Josh, this is Eddy.

71.111.6.4 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Eddygazilion, or 71.111.6.4 (don't have an account yet)

Images
The page doesn't need two views of the same thing. Somebody pick one and remove the other. Isopropyl 07:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hyphenation
I am not familiar with this material; is it "Christian Scientist" or "Christian-Scientist"? There is some ambiguity on the page. Isopropyl 07:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If anything's hyphenated, it shouldn't be. "Christian Scientist."
 * -anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.177.139 (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
The accuracy of this article is already in dispute. It is obviously not written with a Neutral Point of View and by its nature should probably be given some leeway in that regard. The inclusion of links to alternate points of view provides some balance. Removal of such links could result in further discussion and action regarding its non-compliance with Wikipedia standards.

--Do go be man 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest POV/reversion war will lead to this article being higher on the radar for deletion.

--Do go be man 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit wars do not cause articles to be deleted. Isopropyl 01:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps edit wars don't cause articles to be deleted, but they can highlight the lack of a neutral point of view.
 * --Do go be man 09:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Title Ambiguity: Christian Science & The Church of Christ, Scientist
NOTE: This is syndicated from Talk:Christian Science

I was reading an article on Leopold and Loeb, the serial killers. In it it touches on the ethnicity and religion of them both, which states (excerpt in full to retain context): -


 * The point of the ethnicity and religion of killers and victim is something that requires further explication. It is often written about this case that "both the killers and their victim were Jewish." However, it might be more accurate to say that both were perceived as Jewish by the larger, gentile world. Richard Loeb was not Jewish by birth according to ancient Hebrew tradition since he had a non-Jewish mother (she was a German Catholic) but his last name meant that people thought of him as Jewish and he had been raised in that faith. The Franks family was Jewish by ethnicity but had converted to Christian Science. Nathan Leopold was Jewish on both sides of his family. However, he did not practice that religion, or any other, having been an atheist since he was about 11 years old.

Now the date of this murder was in 1924, how common would it have been for Christian Science as a religion in Chicago at that time? Furthermore, what would be the rates of Jewish conversion to a 'Christian cult' as it was percieved at that stage? Also, this article states in it's opening paragraph that Christian Science is a teaching derived from a book published in 1934.

Where does one's mind go? The author is lying or inaccurate? Surely a highly known crime reporter wouldn't dare .. or more often than not, Wikipedia is wrong or inaccurate. In this instance the ambiguity is rife. To someone who does not know anything about 'The Church of Christ, Scientist' they would be coming to this article. Gramatically, such a title for a church is very, very odd indeed, I cannot think of any organisation named similarly. I may be not understanding the nomenclature in context again, but at the end of the day, that's even more ambiguity in these articles as I am an outsider trying to learn more (ie: the use of an encyclopedia).

The 'The Church of Christ, Scientist' church page states, "The Church of Christ, Scientist, often known as the Christian Science church" .. if it is often known by the other nomenclature, shouldn't a disambiguation page exist? I would not put a book over a church as far as notability goes, personally I would say this should be a redirect to 'The Church of Christ, Scientist' church page with a disambiguation line atop that page for 'other uses' then citing the book.

Just some feedback as to how this article is going I suppose, it had me -very- confused for a while there. I will syndicate this between both articles talk pages in hopes that perhaps some of the editors can get together and figure out how to make it way less ambiguous. Jachin 23:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oxymoron
I am a strong, outspoken critic of Christian Science and also object to the "oxymoron" label a poster has attempted to use. Such a description has no place on Wikipedia and undermines legitimate criticism. --Do go be man 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Happily, that's why we can revert. Some folks, who feel that Wikipedia is a soapbox, periodically come around and anonymously spray graffiti on the walls.  A little soap and water is all it takes.  :)  Digitalican 18:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Ambiguity: Christian Science & List of Christian thinkers in science
The topics of "Christian Scientists" and "Christian scientists" are separate and distinct. While there is an entry titled "Jewish scientists", a search for "Christian scientists" leads only to the Church of Christ, Scientist - not where I want to go. Others may also have this problem, too.

A Disambiguation Page is urgently needed.

Hoserjoe 06:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Did Quimby Edit Science & Health from beyond the grave?
I find it unusual that someone keeps editing the page to state that P. Quimby edited the Science and Health for Mary Baker Eddy. He passed on (i.e., was dead) before she even published it. It would be quite unusual for someone to work as an editor after they died.

If you go to the Quimby article, you will find that he passed on in 1866. The Science and Health was not published until 1875. There is no obvious way he could have been involved in editing "over the ensuing, long-term writing and iterative editing of Science and Health with Key to the Sciptures" as is claimed.

I attempted to correct this, but it was changed within half an hour of my correcting this factual error. Perhaps my second attempt will stand?

Phare Play — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.100.249 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't tell what 72.73.100.249 is trying to accomplish with multiple edits in the form of comments rather than fact. I don't recall any claim by anybody that Quimby edited S&H. James Henry Wiggins was the editor. --Do go be man 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (as corrected to original text after edit by 72.73.100.249)

Editing someone's else's Talk is a breach of etiquette. If 72.73.100.249 would like to be known as Phare Play, I suggest he register as such and use that nom de plume. --Do go be man 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if i am not clear on the ettiquette here. I was browsing the internet, doing a little research, and came across this article, which has a factual error (or, a serious grammatical error, which gives an incorrect meaning).
 * I had mistakenly thought that, if a person is editing out what I add to the article, then it is acceptable to edit others' additions. Apparently, that is not how it works here.
 * I am not too interested in being a regular contributor here. I simply noted a factual error and was trying to correct it. I also apologize for editing out the ip I am posting from, today, and replacing it with "[phare play]." It didn't seem like a huge change, to me.
 * Since it is clear that the factual error is going to stand, I will bow out of further discussion.
 * Phare Play — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.100.249 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Editing something that someone else has signed on a Talk page causes a misrepresentation of the original author's message. Good catch, you are probably right about the confusion regarding the claim of Quimby editing S&H. I don't want to discourage your article editing attempts, however, do encourage you to register. The paragraph needs to be corrected or corroborated. I made a note to that effect in the article. --Do go be man 21:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * thanks for polite clarification. I was following links from google and simply ended up on that article. I appreciate your patience with a beginner here. Though, I admit, I don't have much interest in being a regular at all . . . so, I will leave it up to folks like you, who know the etiquette, to make corrections. I have to get out of here and get back to work! 8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.100.249 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

response
The article states: "Eddy would later claim that she had provided much of the foundation of Quimby's thoughts on healing and, moreover, that Quimby's services comprised only that of "paid polisher" as an assistant over the ensuing, long-term writing and iterative editing of Science and Health with Key to the Sciptures, work over which she maintained penultimate approval (her spelling and other copyeditorial skills being sometimes less than reliable)."

Now, either the writing here is grammatically incorrect, or, someone is trying to state that Quimby edited Science & Health. How could he be involved in a position of "[...] "paid polisher" as an assistant over the ensuing, long-term writing and iterative editing of Science and Health with Key to the Sciptures [...]"?

You are correct about Wiggins' help. Again, either there is a serious problem with grammar, or the individual who is posting and editing the above is posting a factual error that can easily be clarified. Either way, it should be edited accordingly.

21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Phare Play — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.100.249 (talk)

Mother's room
I was reading the manual of the Mother Church, and found an interesting reference to "Mother's room", or the room that was Mrs. Eddy's at the Mother church in Boston. The reference said that it was no longer open to the public. Does this room still exist? If so, does the church maintain it as she left it? Any pictures?

JWidmann 02:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC) JWidmann 19 August 2007

Template: Wikipedia Rational Skepticism
This article is about a religion, its founder and/or its organizational structure. I don't find this template on other religions, their founders, or church organizations, such as Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unity Church, New Thought, Religious Science, etc. This template does not belong here. I see that many of the religions cited have Wikiprojects of their own and/or are part of the Wikiproject on Christianity. Someone just added that here, which is fine. Why not a Wikiproject on the Christian Science religion? clariosophic 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
I was born and raised a Christian Scientist but I kind of object to the use of leading words on the page. This isn't a soapbox for us, and more likely than not, using such words will work against fair and free knowledge rather than promoting it. That is, if people think this page is trying to get them to think what we think, a door usually goes up. I'm all up for a slightly more neutral version. For example, removing the words "unique" and "Miraculous" in the first paragraph, and perhaps replacing them with "prayer based healing" and for the second, an entire rephrase of:

Members of the church often share accounts of their healings, attributed to a correct understanding of reality. (the last few words can be changed, depending on preference to something like 'attributed to God' although that leaves a lot to be desired too, I suppose)

I guess what I'm saying is, this isn't the right forum to press our personal views, but to express in an less debatable ways the basic tenets and foundation of our faith.

I mean there are a lot of other problems with the article, especially in the form of poor phrasing, but I think that has the biggest problem hiding in it. People come to this page to learn, not to be persuaded. If anyone else agrees, I'll post possible edits here before doing anything in the main article (and I will also get an account, so you don't think I'm a creepy computer stalker, jumping from terminal to terminal). Please don't think this means I have any desire to dilute the article, just to make it more digestible and less threatening to those of differing faiths.

-ayrlyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.103.88 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed work group
There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Twitchell case
Article states the Twitchells were convicted. This leaves a misleading impression since the conviction, according to the Wikipedia article on the case, was overturned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.229 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Raise the Dead?
Any info on the logo words? "Heal the sick, Raise the dead, Cleanse the lepers, Cast out Demons" - some big claims there, surely there's an interesting background story to that --naught101 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's from Matthew 10:8. Jesus commanded his disciples to do these things. --Arcturus42 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)--