Talk:Mary Baker Eddy/Archive 1

Untitled
Mary Baker Eddy supporter of British Israelism

Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science was a supporter of British Israelism she believed she was a descendant of King David, she wrote a poem about British Israelism in one of her books supporting the Anglo and American peoples are the true Israel.

Our nation is a nation of prophecy, according to the Anglo-Israel studies accepted by Mrs. Eddy where she refers to the United States and Great Britain as "Anglo-Israel," and our "brother," Great Britain, as "Judah's sceptred race".

Her poem " The United States To Great Britain " can be read here:

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/49020/

86.10.119.131 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
I added the quote about her attempt to sue the city and it's reference, please do not revert without a good reason, it is cited. 165.146.79.126 17:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC) ---

I don't think wikipedia is meant to be just a list of external links. Please write at least a stub article giving her dates of birth and death, and what makes her historically noteworthy. Is she the founder of Christian Science?? Wesley

---

Note to 68.155.125.136: Your comment on Hinduism has a definite fundamentalist polemical nature. I know CS and MBE's writings thoroughly, and Hinduism pretty well, and I can tell you she tended to have more negative inclination than positive on it. She not only never "acknowledged" (note the spelling) such connection (even if she briefly imagined it might hint at a Christian transcendence), she rooted herself emphatically in Christianity, in repeated opposition to "heathenism" and "paganism", however narrowly you yourself may define Christianity. I think I can also inform you your claim that her "followers" omitted such text is absurd. She was redactor of her own constant revisions to the book, and while she occasionally sought others' input on how the ideas came across, she was in fact extremely jealous of its purity and resistant as a rule to their ideas, as her secretary Adam Dickey observed at some length. I'd recommend you read through the Peel biographies or similar works, let alone Science and Health itself, first before interposing speculative conjectures. Chris Rodgers 10:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

This is a very poorly written article. I would suggest making the first paragraph more than a list of disconnected sentences. Go from there.

Have begun the footnoting process
As a wiki source for information on one of the most significant female American leaders in American religious history, this biographical article needs some serious attention. As an amatuer historian on Church history including from early Christianity through modern times as well as a touch on Christian Science, I will try to add more information including an extensive bibliography. While Eddy remains highly controversial to this day and she deserves an even-handed treatment and an extensive biography. She remains highly interesting not only to her followers but also to her detractors, American religious scholars and is too often overlooked in discussions on the development of both American philosophical as well as theological thought. SimonATL 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Balance
The wikipedian who deleted the external link to former Christian Scientists tried to remove that balance from the Christian Science article earlier. Do go be man 08:20, 09 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that one of the "Core Beliefs" of those behind the external link referred to, is that "people who are not followers of Jesus Christ will spend eternity in hell." (Presumably this includes people who, through no fault of their own, never got a chance to hear of Jesus Christ as well as--in some instances--the fathers and mothers of the "saved".) Please note that this is an entry on Mary Baker Eddy, the discoverer and founder of Christian Science, not an entry on Protestant fundamentalism. If you believe that there is an imbalance in the entry you are free to edit it like anyone else, but please stop adding irrelevant material.81.108.28.190 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The site referred to is maintained by former Christian Scientists who had long experience with Christian Science which Mary Baker Eddy is said to have discovered. Rather than edit and clutter an article obviously biased towards Christian Science, I felt it more appropriate to simply provide access to an alternate perspective. --Do go be man 20:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit war to retain the link to The Christian Way is getting silly. It is not intended to be as threatening as it appears to be. --Do go be man 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The biographical page on Mary Baker Eddy is not the place to include an article providing an alternative view to/of Christian Science any more than a link to former protestants who have become muslims would be appropriately included in a biographical article on Martin Luther. Digitalican 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science are linked. Perhaps it would not be appropriate to include a section discussing alternate views of her teachings, but a link that provides balance to a POV article should not be so threatening. Mary Baker Eddy claimed to be a Christian (a claim I don't necessarily dispute). The opportunity to consider a Christian perspective on her teachings is appropriate. The example of former protestants who became muslims offering alternate views in a biographical article on Martin Luther may not be appropriate unless their new philosophy had a direct connection to their old. --Do go be man 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not threatening, it's inappropriate. As it stands the article is on her, not on her teachings. (You've missed the point of a biographical article on Martin Luther being about him not about the theology of protestantism.) If you feel the biographical article is POV then, obviously, it needs to be rewritten -- something which would be a constructive approach and which I would certainly agree with.

Since you've now violated the three revert rule I guess we'll have to go to mediation. Digitalican 17:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Still being a relative newbie to Wikipedia, I was not aware of the 3 revert rule and had to look it up. We've discussed the relevancy of the Christian Way link before. Apparently, we both have strong feelings regarding the relevancy of providing balance within topics which have inherent points of view. So, how do we reach a civil resolution? --Do go be man 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You and I have not discussed this, at least in context of this page. As I see it there's no inherent POV in a biography, which should be factual. (If it is not, then it needs to be rewritten. Adding links does not accomplish balance, it just confuses and adds to clutter.)  Links to Christian Way are possibly appropriate to pages that directly discuss Christian Science theology and belief and nobody has removed them from those pages. My objection, as it was to inclusion of the link on the Christian Science Board of Directors article, is that it isn't directly relevant to the subject of this article.

I've requested intervention from the Mediation Cabal, which seems a reasonable first step. Digitalican 18:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm Addhoc from the mediation-cabal. Firstly, could I ask Do go be man, whether he believes the external link contains biographical information about Mary Baker Eddy that isn't currently in the article? Addhoc 12:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Addhoc. Yes, I do believe that the external link contains biographical information about Mary Baker Eddy that isn't currently in the article. Thanks. --Do go be man 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, could you outline this biographical information? Addhoc 09:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy's life and times are a frequent topic of discussion on the Christian Way forums. The forums provide the opportunity for Christian Scientists, former Christian Scientists, and anyone else to share perspectives regarding the life of Mary Baker Eddy, her writings, the organizations she founded, and the impact her life had on others. For example, Christian Way Forums: The Gill biography of MBE... a middle view.

There are many others, but time for providing such examples is short and likely not considered relevant to this discussion. The web site itself provides a resource list supporting and not supporting Christian Science including biographies of Mary Baker Eddy:
 * Mary Baker Eddy Biographies: Not Supporting
 * Mary Baker Eddy Biographies: Supporting

Again, may not be as relevant to this discussion as it could be.

The issue was well put below by Beland (in Critical Perspective):

"Eddy is the founder of a rather controversial religion. If you take a look at Joseph Smith, Jr. or Martin Luther, you'll see a section which summarized their main teachings, which is missing here...The current version of this article is overly symphathetic, only mentioning that Eddy was controversial" and not giving us any details on what sort of criticism she personally encountered."

As I sampled Wikipedia biographies, I found that biographical articles included the concept that their lives are inexorably intertwined with their writings, actions, and organizations they founded. From Joseph Smith and Martin Luther to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Sun Myung Moon, Kip McKean, L. Ron Hubbard, and Jim Jones, I found links to sites which offered alternative perspectives on the lives of those men. Even the article on Alcoholics Anonymous founder, Bill W., contains links to sites critical of AA.

I could have written the "Controversy" section suggested by Beland, however, felt it best and more respectful to keep matters simple by only including the Christian Way link. Should Addhoc decide the link should be removed, I will defer and consider writing the suggested section.

In the meantime, I would like offer some notes regarding my credentials and those of some of my fellow former Christian Scientist Christian Way associates (BTW, we have frequent contributions from Christian Scientists as well which include comments on the life and biographies of Mary Baker Eddy).

Many of us were multi-generational Christian Scientists who lived, breathed, and studied Mary Baker Eddy's writings for decades. Her life served as a model for us. We received the same training required of a Christian Science Practitioner listed in the Christian Science Journal for which she provided. In appropriate circumstances, we are entitled to use the title "C.S." following our names in much the same way as other credentialed professionals and scholars. Some served in the full-time practice of Christian Science.

I've posted almost 1,400 messages on the Christian Way forums. Recently, a Christian Scientist who earned a Ph.D. mentioned that he appreciated my scholarly approach. I try to provide citations and proof texts for much of what I write. I also hold an post graduate degree.

Thus, while Mary Baker Eddy's supporters may not agree with much of what the Christian Way offers, it does have the authority and credibility of experience, training, and documentation. --Do go be man 17:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me offer a solution/compromise. After looking at some similar biographical pages, it seems what may be needed here is a Wikipedia article on "Controversy Surrounding Christian Science."  This is very similar to the Wiki link off of the Joseph Smith page.  It would also provide a place to put some of the argumentation currently on the Christian Science and Church of Christ, Scientist pages that will facilitate their cleanup.  Do go be man can then put an external link to Christianway.org on that page.


 * If that is not acceptable, a link to specific places on the Christianway.org site dealing with alternative views or criticism of Mary Baker Eddy's biography would seem more appropriate than the current link which points to the christianway.org web site as a whole. Digitalican 18:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, creating a new article seems like a lot of effort to avoid leaving in an external link that has precedence on many other pages. I have to admit to a level of curiosity as to why not leave things as they are. --Do go be man 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, the situation appears to be that you want the link included, while three editors on this page want the link removed. The link has more relevance to some other articles, but doesn't contain much biographical information not already in the article. In this context, I would suggest the link should be removed. Addhoc 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As agreed, I will defer to the authority of the mediator and remove the link under the protest that precedence in other articles indicates this article will be treated by different standards. I will also begin working on the suggested section regarding "Controversy". I remain curious regarding the agendas of those who objected to the link. --Do go be man 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Peel Book not originally church-authorized
Robert Peel's trilogy on Eddy was not published originally by the CS church, nor was it, from the beginning, so-called authorized literature. All that - developed later. Consequently, in the biography section I changed the wording to read "eventually church authorized.SimonATL 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but to call it definitive is a bit much, smacks of POV to me 165.146.95.152 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it pretty much is the definitive work and long is likely to be; Gillian Gill explicitly acknowledges as much also in her own not exactly lightweight work. Also volume 3 was not published by the church, but that doesn't mean the church had problems with it, the Reading Rooms carried it from day one.  Plus "authorized" was a term long in disuse,m so the point is kind of silly.  Chris Rodgers 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

... controversial 1999 work by a non-Christian Scientist, Gillian Gill ...   Where is a non-OR source to back up the contention that this book is controversial? If one can't be found, I suggest deleting this characterization. Nashville 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Gill got a great deal of unexpected support from the church. I've read it, and there is little that is controversial. It is a strikingly pro-Eddy work (Gill had never even heard of MBE before her publisher asked her to write it), with Gill almost always taking Eddy's side. There is, however, an occasional sense of "I'm not sure I really believe in Christian healing". Gill's focus is on MBE's leadership and influence as a woman. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Gill Book not authoritative
From the introduction, Gill demonstrates a profound ignorance and MIS-understanding of much about both Eddy as well as the Church she founded. For example, in the intro, she displays complete ignorance of the purpose for the building of the Mother Church ediface as well as its Extension. It goes down hill from there. Speaking of Mrs. Eddy's pincushion, for example, Gill says, "When I read of the rigid routine; the priority given to punctuality, cleanliness, and unvarying order; the exact place each pin had to occupy on Mrs. Eddy's pincushion, my heart fills with gloom." No mention of Eddy's teaching, "perfection undelies reality," and why? Because Gill doesn't really understand Eddy nor her teaching. From the intro on, with a ton of "I think this" and "I think that" observations, Gill attempts to understand and explain Eddy but fails, in my opinion, miserably. "Authorized literature of the First Church of Christ, Scientist?" Unbelievable! Why would the Church, which sometimes refused her access to its own historical Archives, forcing her to work with the CS "renegade" Ann Beals., nevertheless, give it their moniker? Some have told me it was simple - so Eddy's theological critics wouldn't get ahold of the bio and say, "See what we told you about that woman." Smart politics - Church "authorization" almost completly defused that result SimonATL 15:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Critical perspectives
Eddy is the founder of a rather controversial religion. If you take a look at Joseph Smith, Jr. or Martin Luther, you'll see a section which summarized their main teachings, which is missing here. You'll also see coverage of the community's reaction to their teachings, which is of course a major event in their lives. The current version of this article is overly symphathetic, only mentioning that Eddy was "controversial" and not giving us any details on what sort of criticism she personally encountered. Note, for example, this passage from Christian Science Monitor:


 * The Monitor's inception was, in part, a response by Eddy to the journalism of her day, which relentlessly covered the sensations and scandals surrounding her new religion with varying degrees of accuracy. In addition, Mark Twain's blisteringly critical book Christian Science stung Eddy particularly, and according to many historians led Eddy to found her own media outlet.

This article just says the paper was "devoted to balance". Ahem.

Regarding the Christian Way dispute, I see a minimal amount of content there that covers Eddy's biography specifically, with some minor details which might be added here. (Though given the anti-CS nature of the site, I would seek out a more reliable source.) I don't think it's appropriate for this article, but it is appropriate for Christian Science, and indeed it's already listed there under Criticism.

-- Beland 12:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Personally, I don't have a problem with a NPOV tag. Also, I agree the Christian Way link doesn't appear to include much biographical information and I wouldn't object to this information being included in the article, possibly using different sources. Addhoc 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Source - up to you
I've found a reliable source with a passing mention. I don't know enough about MBE to evaluate if using it would create an undue weight issue. So I'll quote and cite for you - go to edit mode to see the full citation. It is a short paragraph in a section on Warren, Maine. "The founder of Christian Science spent some time here in 1864. Then Mrs. Patterson, she gave several lectures which she reported in a series of charming letters.  Publicly advertised title of one of her lectures was 'P. P. Quimby's Spiritual Science Healing Disease - as opposed to Deism or Rochester-Rapping-Spiritualism.' "  GRBerry 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Legacy
Reference should be made to Mary Baker Eddy's full legacy, including her Deed of Trust, the Church Manual, the unbroken heritage of Christian Science Class Instruction, the documented healings attributed to her, and "The Great Litigation" which is standard study for all law students, which is a landmark case involving the legal instruments Mrs. Eddy established. The Great Litigation was reported in the Christian Science Monitor newspaper in the early 1920's. Also, photographic books were made of her home in Concord, New Hampshire in 1897 entitled "Pleasant View" 20 plates of the home of Rev. Mary Baker Eddy, and also of her home in Brookline, Massachusetts entitled "Scrapbook", published posthumously by the head of her estate's security detail. A collector's silver spoon which she authorized in her lifetime which bears her image is still popular among collectors. When people would visit her she would encourage them to buy a dozen of them! Regarding her fame, she always made headlines in all the leading newspapers of her day. She was a self-made millionaire in a time when women could not even vote and pioneered in women's rights. She was the highest-paid women author of her day, and yet her natural born son never learned to read or write, but this did not discourage her from pursuing her life's work.66.156.0.212 04:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)profeugen


 * Correction on the "Great Litigation" between the CS Board of Directors and the Trustees of the CS Publishing Society. I have been a CSist for over 30 years and never heard the Great Litigation discussed in Law School nor do I know of anyone else who's heard it discussed. But that's just my particular experience. SimonATL 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Founder of a religion?
A new category has been started for founders of religions. Should Mary Baker Eddy be included in this category? I think most people would think so. Is there a reason why not? Thanks. Steve Dufour 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Quimby connection plus distinction materials added
Over an over again, the critics of Eddy rail on her having "stole Christian Science from Phineas Quimby," yet it is important for serious Eddy scholars to understand her relation to the so-called "magnetic doctor," Phineas Parkhurst Quimby. While she was helped by him, physically, taught by him and even helped write down many of his thoughts, ideas and theories, and was greatly influenced by him, his role, while a formative one for Eddy, was not ultimately determinative. Eddy's fundamental concepts were much different from Quimby's and she totally rejected Quimby's notions of a dualism between matter and spirit or any sense that mesmerism/hypnotism was, in way, good or a positive influence on the thought and health of a suffering patient. SimonATL 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just added a little puntuation to help things be a little clearer. Read your objections to Gill, yet she offers great documentation on why Christian Science is not Quimbism. It helps to demonstrate how her discovery is based on the Bible. What she considered her authority, teacher, and guide. Thanks.

Article moving further from neutrality
Recent edits have moved this article even further away from neutrality. That is not necessarily a bad thing in the broadest context. There was nothing neutral about Mary Baker Eddy in her lifetime or now, regardless of what you may otherwise feel about her.

Wikipedia standards, however, call for neutrality. I will continue to watch this page, but believe the addition of external links providing alternate points of view have become appropriate unless attempts are made to comply with Wikipedia standards of neutrality. --Do go be man 02:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I will disagree on two points. First, I don't see neutrality being violated. Neutrality is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. There are those for whom the mere mention of Mary Baker Eddy is not neutral, just as there are those for whom the mention of Joseph Smith is not neutral. Such people should probably not edit encyclopedias.

Second, neutrality is different from balance. Multiple different viewpoints do not add up to neutrality, they simply turn articles into forums which are definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you think an article is not neutral, then apply edits to improve its neutrality.

I've actually been fascinated by the back and forth of the editing here. There's work to be done, certainly, but adding links does nothing to improve the situation. Digitalican 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

woah...seriously this is not a netural page... some words have huge negative connatations to it jackchen123 20 AUGUST 2007

Hi!! I love this process! Being neutral, what does that mean to you? Tell me what other events should be here and I'm happy to work on it for others to look at. Any issue you have in mind?Simplywater 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have a little problem with the long quotes under study with Quimby and his influence. I don't have a problem with the topic, but I'm not sure that the long quotes give the public an understanding of what the writer wants to communicate.

I am happy to work with the original writer to put this part together in an understandable way. with come quotes included. But I went to other web sites and they don't have long quotes like that.


 * I'm the original writer who put all those long quotes in because they reveal a lot of information on Eddy's relationship to Quimby. Eventually, I hope to put out a separate article on Eddy and Quimby. Perhaps, I'll just transplant those quotes to that article. Also - please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~) that way we know who "you," Simplywater, are. Thanks (I'm following this with the 4 tidldes so you now see --> SimonATL 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

that may be a good idea. to have a separate page. although the relationship between quimby and Mrs. Eddy is interesting, it shouldn't dominate a bibliography page about her. Her thought are truely unique as pointed out by several differnt authors.71.220.211.20 (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, here goes :)  I tried to put everything that has to do with the difference between Quimby and Eddy together since the title of the article is not about Quimby and Eddy.  I also cut some of the long quotes because I didn't see any evidence in other biographies of long quotes.  But I hope I caught the spirit of what the author intended.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 10:48, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I am dismayed by the predominance given to biographer Gillian Gill over all other biographers. Who says Gillian Gill has the only valid viewpoint? Why should her views be the only ones expressed? The neutrality of this article is very questionable. 75.40.61.177 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gillian Gill is a significant biographer, because she is not a Christian Scientist, had never even heard of Mary Baker Eddy, and yet wrote a highly positive biography -- albeit on other than metaphysical grounds. I would agree that there are other biographies worth referencing, and not just Peel's. It should be noted that Mrs Eddy wanted no biographies written, as she felt her writing were all that mattered.


 * I agree that "balance" and "neutrality" are difficult to define, let alone enforce. Simply because someone has written something positive or negative about someone else does not justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia article, for either reason. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

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 clariosophic 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Christian Science is Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.23.216 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've thought some time about your question and I have to say that Mary Baker Eddy was a great Christian thinker. Her thoughts on sacrament, hell, heaven, atonment, Christ, Jesus, baptism should be of the continuing Christian dialogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

her crusade against the flesh
I am still amazed by the total war she wages on the flesh and the physical body. She sees it as a major evil and never tires to reiterate the old fashioned "Spirit - Good, Matter - Bad". The division of body and mind/spirit took place in the Middle Ages. What is then her contribution, what is it that makes her philosophy any different and special? I don't understand how she explains the fact that we possess a physical body at all. If we're the children of the Creator and made in his perfect image and likeness ... what is wrong with our physical body and experience of the material world? Or at least what went wrong?

When Mary Baker Eddy speaks of her being against pantheism, she believes there is no life in the body. If so, how does she explain the fact of pain or reaction to a variety of external stimuli? And what about the bodily reflection of mental states and certain emotions? Couldn't the spirit be like the electricity needed to make any electrical device work?

I don't know where to interject so here looks to be as good as any place. Mrs. Eddy's teachings are not "Spirit - Good, Matter - Bad" They are "Spirit - God, spiritual - reality, matter - illusion projected from material belief". As electrical current is a material phenomenon, to a Christian Scientist electrical impulses in the brain are effect, not cause. Thought is always the cause. So the goal of the Christian Scientist is always to spiritualize thought. Healing is the result of more spiritualized thinking, not the goal in and of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.199.119 (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow!!! Great questions. I have found that most of what she says comes straight from the Bible. It is best to go straight to the source to find your answers. She has two books that may be of interest. One is Christian Science verses Pantheism. Her most important work is Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Christian Science is unique because it teaches that the reality of God denies the reality of sin, sickness, death and the material world.

Let me give you what she considers to be the doctrine of Christian Science from her textbook Science and Health.

This is the doctrine of Christian Science: that divine Love cannot be deprived of its manifestation, or object; that joy cannot be turned into 12  sorrow, for sorrow is not the master of joy; that good can never produce evil; that matter can never produce mind nor life result in death. The perfect man--governed

From my perspective her message is unique because it is explaining the laws of God for all to understand. The Christ, has been speaking to humanity since the beginning of time, and humanity has understood that pure message of love in different degrees. For me, her contribution is writing down the spiritual laws in operation that Jesus saw where we see matter.

Middle Ages - While I am not an expert on the Middle Ages, In Christian Science,  God, Love is recognized as the only power and as completely good. I consider my warfare as recognizing only God as power. Instead of a battle between evil as a power and God as a power. I have seen the practical effects in the form of healing by only acknowledging God Spirit,good as the only creator and a creator of only good. I would say that is unique.

All is Spirit - Eddy's discovery that existence is only spiritual, and not dependent of material systems of any kind, also make Christian Science unique.

Body. As a Christian Scientist, I love the 1st chapter of Genisis. "And man was made in the image and likeness of God" Instead of looking at our physical body and making God man-like. I have learned to see man as God-like. Eternally good, pure, loving, intelligent. For example, if I asked to you to discribe yourself, you could say "I am 5 feet 8 inches tall, I have blond hair and large hands." Or you could say "I'm sincere, thoughtful, persitent and kind". Those qualites, I understand, constitute our true make-up. And, I bet most Christians would agree.

simplywater —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.23.216 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem of "understanding" -- let alone accepting -- Christian Science is realizing that it is not a dualistic belief. All that exists is God, and God's spiritual creation. Virtually all other religions and belief systems accept a dualistic universe, in which there is a "good" that, though nominally omnipotent, is beset by an opposed belief or force, called "evil". To believe -- and more importantly, to act -- otherwise, is to dishonor God, and block progress away from the material and towards the spiritual. As Jesus said, "You cannot serve God and Mammon." MBE put it more bluntly -- "There is no power apart from God." The seemingly absurd answer to "Why do I seem to have a material body?" -- "You don't, you only seem to." -- is the truth. To believe otherwise is to believe that Infinite Spirit is capable of creating finite, limited, imperfect beings. In Christian Science, there is no mind/body duality, because there is no physical body, and no human mind to be "embodied" in it. Human thought is its own self-deluded lie. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Eddy's influences, Controversy Et. Al.
Allright, I've noticed some tampering with the controversy section getting a pro edit as opposed to my original posting with references, I believe a section on Controversy belongs in such articles to maintain neutrality, but more importantly, to provide information, Someone could be viewing this page in research for making a life choice, I'd be happy if someone added pros to the Controversy section, I can already provide the Cons.

Regarding Influences and Schools of thought however, Eddy did not influence mainstream medicine, science, or Christianity in any way shape or form,(if this is incorrect please provide evidence of such) New Thought would be her proper influence, or Eastern Mysticism of the Hindu, since her teachings have everything to do with the yogic concepts of "maya" and what exists not actually existing, including evil and nothing (that I've ever read) to do with Christ who never taught such things, nor has Christianity proper.

I personally feel that excluding these things from her biography destroys the Neutrality of the article and makes it Biased in favor of...I hope I am not the only one that sees this? In Closing I would like to state that, I have studied the subject at hand extensivly, and given the beliefs presented in the manner in which they are currently, I think I am justly concerned when considering the world could lose someone to a treatable disease due to getting all the "happy" stuff from here...much like what happened to Jim Henson

Regards, Thanatos-Lupercus

P.S. Digitalcan, should you wish to contact me to discuss any of this, I do have several IMs, pick your poison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.25.103 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, most if not all of your criticisms apply to Christian Science rather than Mary Baker Eddy. This is, after all, a biographical article not an article about the church or the belief system.  As such, criticisms of the church are misplaced.


 * There's a more general point here in that there's a difference between balance and neutrality. An accumulation of "pro" and "con" sections does not make an article neutral, it makes it unreadable.  This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum.


 * In terms of influences, I feel like you're trying to have it both ways. You reject her (or Christian Science's) influence on Christianity and ask for documentation, yet you assert an influence by Hinduism without a shred of evidence other than they seem similar.  (Just because we look alike doesn't mean we're biological brothers.)  I'd assert (without documented evidence beyond letters and newspaper columns in the 19th century) that Christian Science has historically certainly influenced American Protestantism.  While I'd agree that certain aspects of Christian Science resemble eastern thought, there's no indication that Eddy was more than peripherally in contact with them.  Sometimes, though you take a different path, you get to the same ending point.


 * Finally, I'm very disrespectful of anonymous edits that make bold assertions or have major consequences. It has something to do with accountability. Digitalican (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Digitalcan,

That almost sounds like a personal attack, almost; however I would contend that as you were raised as CS that should bar you from editing of this article as you obviously will have bias in favor of, consciously or subconsciously. As for my anonymous edits, I don't wish to have a username etc. in the wiki-caste system. I'm sure you're going to be nominated to be on the MEDCAB, Enjoy.


 * Regards,
 * Thanatos-Lupercus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.25.103 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and for the record, Digitalcan, CS is directly influenced by Hinduism, via yogic teachings, which of course also assert that the physical world is not real, Quimby had connections with this, and subsequently Eddy learned from Quimby (Who would later be regarded as the father of New Thought.) whether this is stated in a "sponsored" or "Sponsored research" bit of bologna, I don't know; however, I do know that Eddy never influenced, science, (science is based on Facts and, oddly enough, original research.) medicine, (unless you call condemning medicine outright, and declaring diseases to be Illusion an "influence", then sure she influenced it, negatively. Alternative medicine like reiki and whatnot might qualify however.) and Christianity (She actually takes a greatly anti-christian stance, denying primary tenets, and regarding God as something more like "The Force" than anything else, if you'd read the resources I added, you'd note this).


 * Now, you being a devotee, I'm sure you were conditioned to ignore these things, part and parcel of the job after all. This information however, Does belong in the Biography, as much as the other sections' (which I have left completely alone As you can see) talking of "her religion" etc. Why? Because you cannot seperate an individual who starts a "religion" from the religion itself, unless of course you want to sterilize the whole shebang of any religious mention, but that wouldn't be very biographical, would it?


 * What I see occuring here, is an article that prattles on about how good and awesome ad nauseam she was, veiled though it may be, and so, it requires cons to even out it's pros, yes Balance even, which is actually the same thing as Neutrality (If a submarine makes it's tendency to sink match with it's tendency to float, it's called Neutral Bouyancy, of course if you want to correct the Navy on this, feel free.) unless of course, wikipedia's definition of neutrality diverges from the mainstream and *accepted* version.


 * Lastly, this may be Jimbo's lil attempt at internet communism (a nice idea but not viable.), but as with it's physical world counterpart it doesn't work, as it fails to account for the fact that some people are just plain evil, and usually get into positions of power (MEDCAB or whatever you want to call it, joke as it may be made out to be..same as people's party of China.) and once there, generally stay (George W, prime example of this). As for her school of thought, even the sections existant already in this article suggest it's Personal Revelation, just as much as joseph smith's deal; Philosophy? Sure...but Christianity? Since jim jones based his suicide cult on Christianity, does that *make it* Christianity? Of course not.


 * In lieu of your continual removing of the aforementioned sections, and against my better judgement, (Since I already can guess where this will end up.) I'd like to make a formal request for Arbitration, preferably by a Party or parties who have no connection to either Christianity or CS, that their descision won't be partial to either side. Agreed?


 * Regards,
 * Thanatos-Lupercus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.81.28 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am absolutely up for arbitration. I stand by my original points and little you have said -- proof by vigorous hand-waving -- disputes them. While I'm willing to engage in constructive dialog, that sort of engagement doesn't seem to be in the cards, so to speak.

By your logic criticism of Microsoft products is appropriate to Bill Gates' biography or criticism of Artificial Intelligence apprpriate to Turing's biography. I don't think that's a tenable position. Criticism of Christian Science, IMHO, belongs in one place, i.e. the Wikipedia page on Christian Science. Had you put it there, I would not have messed with it. People who are looking for either criticisms or apologetics for Christian Science are more sure to find it there.

Your assertions about what influenced Mary Baker Eddy are certainly indirect enough to qualify as "original research" (how did sponsored research get into it?) Such influences may or may not be so, but to assert it is speculative at best.

Finally, I find your rather bald assumption that I am somehow "a devotee" quite amusing, as anyone who knows me would testify. Although raised as a Christian Scientist, I left Christian Science after High School (that would be about 45 years ago,) am often a critic of it and cannot be considered under any circumstances an apologist or devotee.

What I strive to do is use my knowlege of Christian Science coupled with a certain skeptical criticism of it to take a as neutral a stance as I can. By neutral I mean really neutral, and not just balanced. (Go back to my previous comment to see the difference.)

This isn't about neutrality or balance, however, it's about original research (not encouraged on Wikipedia) and misplaced criticism all of which lead to making Wikipedia less encyclopaedic and more like some sort of social network site. That I am absolutely against.

Digitalican (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Digitalcan,


 * Called in the Artillary did we? And with Rollback powers no less, my my... Just so you know, their efforts are futile, my IP is Dynamic, so unless they were to ban, say, all of earthlink, I'd still be around. However since my guess was obviously prophetic, I withdraw, yep have the article all to yourself, this is not because I cannot provide sources for my statements, but rather because I do not wish to fight an old man and the equivilant of the Red Guard over a cult founder's pseudobio. That and this little experiment has proved that the anti-sites are pretty acurate in their evalulation, I doubt you will, but look into them sometime...like this one: wikisucks(dot)blogspot(Period)com (not mine, may sound similar, but not mine). Sure, I have time to burn, but why are you wasting what ya got left maintaining an article? Strikes me as odd..eh well Find something better to do, like I'm doing; and what did I say about internet communism?


 * Groovy as this experiment was...I just don't jive with this anymore, enjoy your promotion to the MEDCAB, also, delete this section as needed, gotta have more space for them fluffy folks to post their praise afterall. Oh and what's that verse? Something about "what we are taught as children we never depart from." or something?


 * Sayonara,
 * Thanatos-Lupercus 172.192.57.37 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain said WHAT???
The ridiculous use of the Gill book to claim that...

"Mark Twain published a satire of Eddy's discovery entitled Christian Science. He said of her in another writing, however, "When we do not know a person -- and also when we do-- we have to judge the size and nature of his achievements as compared with the achievements of others in his special line of business--there is no other way. Measured by this standard, it is thirteen hundred years since the world has produced anyone who could reach up to Mrs. Eddy's waistbelt. In several ways she is the most interesting woman that ever lived and the most extraordinary."[5]"

This paragraph above is absurd. Mark Twain's book was more than a "satire" of Mrs. Eddy. Mark Twain was extremely critical of her and her ideas. His book ranted against her. If anyone wants to pretend that Mark Twain later lauded praise on Mrs. Eddy as is implied by the supposed Gill book prefix (page ix) then they had better offer a direct citation to the writings of Twain himself. With no direct citation to a writing of Mark Twain I think this paragraph has to be thrown out as unreliable and a likely fabrication. 68.91.214.164 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The full text removed by the above referenced change was:
 * At this time no one knows how much, or even if, Eddy influenced the great social and political movements of her day including abolition, the Wellness health movement and the women's suffrage movement. Mark Twain published a satire of Eddy's discovery entitled Christian Science. He said of her in another writing, however, "When we do not know a person -- and also when we do-- we have to judge the size and nature of his achievements as compared with the achievements of others in his special line of business--there is no other way. Measured by this standard, it is thirteen hundred years since the world has produced anyone who could reach up to Mrs. Eddy's waistbelt. In several ways she is the most interesting woman that ever lived and the most extraordinary."


 * I'm pretty certain that the quote is a legitimate quote of Twain. When I have more time, I will try to track down an alternate source than Gill to support it. WilliamKF (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick search reveals another source: "Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy's Challenge to Materialism By Stephen Gottschalk" page 46. I look for more. And another one "Yankee Kingdom: Vermont and New Hampshire By Ralph Nading Hill" page 239. WilliamKF (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found the primary source of the Twain quote, it is the Christian Science book and I have restored the text and cited it to the primary source as well as the secondary. WilliamKF (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to respond. First regarding the passage;

"At this time no one knows how much, or even if, Eddy influenced the great social and political movements of her day including abolition, the Wellness health movement and the women's suffrage movement."

I do not see any valid _information_ within this passage. It is an empty statement. What does it tell us? Why should a passage that tells us nothing remain in the article? "No one knows how much, or even if?"


 * Good point, I agree it should be removed as written. Eddy certainly did weigh in on these issues, so perhaps it is worth somehow bringing these back in or finding a cite to say something useful on these important topics and what her relationship to them was. WilliamKF (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Next the quote attributed to Mark Twain is clearly hyperbole -- and taken out of context -- as the entirety of Twain's book is a diatribe against Eddy and her religion. A few pages later Twain goes on to express doubts that Eddy wrote Science and Health. Twain writes...

"The immense contrast between the legitimate English of Science and Health and the bastard English of Mrs. Eddy's miscellaneous work, and between the maturity of the one diction and the juvenility of the other, suggests--compels--the question, Are there two guns? It would seem so. Is there a poor, foolish, old, scattering flint-lock for rabbit, and a long-range, centre-driving, up-to-date Mauser-magazine for elephant?  It looks like it.  For it is observable that in Science and Health (the elephant-ground) the practice was good at the start and has remained so, and that the practice in the miscellaneous, outside, small-game field was very bad at the start and was never less bad at any later time.

I wish to say that of Mrs. Eddy I am not requiring perfect English, but only good English. No one can write perfect English and keep it up through a stretch of ten chapters. It has never been done. It was approached in the "well of English undefiled"; it has been approached in Mrs. Eddy's Annex to that Book; it has been approached in several English grammars; I have even approached it myself; but none of us has made port.

Now, the English of Science and Health is good. In passages to be found in Mrs. Eddy's Autobiography (on pages 53, 57, 101, and 113), and on page 6 of her squalid preface to Science and Health, first revision, she seems to me to claim the whole and sole authorship of the book. That she wrote the Autobiography, and that preface, and the Poems, and the Plague-spot-Bacilli, we are not permitted to doubt. Indeed, we know she wrote them. But the very certainty that she wrote these things compels a doubt that she wrote Science and Health. She is guilty of little awkwardnesses of expression in the Autobiography which a practiced pen would hardly allow to go uncorrected in even a hasty private letter, and could not dream of passing by uncorrected in passages intended for print. But she passes them placidly by; as placidly as if she did not suspect that they were offenses against third-class English. I think that that placidity was born of that very unawareness, so to speak." --Christian Science, Book II, Chapter 2 75.40.61.177 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems bizarre to me. I wonder who Twain thought wrote S&H if Eddy didn't? WilliamKF (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the Twain quote to more accurately express his viewpoint and moved it to a more appropriate section. I think that is only fair. The book is entirely negative toward Eddy except for a few paragraphs such as this one where he heaps praise on her success at being a scoundrel. 75.40.61.177 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work, I've also added a cite to his later interaction with Paine where he does appear more positive towards Eddy. Given the widely varying statements, his thought about Eddy can't be depicted as wholly supportive nor critical. WilliamKF (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

William, for your information Mark Twain was a satirist, a skeptic and an atheist. When you read the quote form Paine while taking this into an account, you will probably understand that what Twain was ironic. Twain did not express "widely varying statements" about Eddy and can be easily depicted as wholly critical about her. All you have to do is read his Christian Science. I removed Paine's quote and the comment to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.168.14 (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Twain was not an atheist. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've restored the quote because Paine seems clear that it is a reversal of opinion. I feel this cited source deserves to remain. Feel free to add other cites to show Twain's various thoughts on the subject which seemed to vary over time. WilliamKF (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read much of "Christian Science" (if you were raised as a Scientist, it's difficult to read more than a few pages without being upset at its utter stupidity and shallow satire), but my understanding of Twain's views does not jibe with this article. Twain apparently drew a distinction between MBE and Christian Science. He detested her as a person (most likely because, as most 19th-century men, he approved of male social and sexual dominance), but had positive things to say about her claimed discovery. He supposedly said that if healing were possible 2000 years ago, why should it not be possible today? (I don't have a reference.) His remark about MBE being "the benefactor of the age" cannot be considered sarcastic -- especially considering the immediately preceding sentences.

The original Mother Church included a lavish suite for Mrs Eddy's private use. Though Mrs Eddy detested being called "Mother" (she considered it almost sacrilegious, but was unable to wholly suppress it), the room was promptly dubbed "Mother's Room". When Twain savaged the adulation given the room by visitors, she had it promptly locked up -- and not because she was afraid of Samuel Longhorn Clemens.

There should be a carefully researched section on "Eddy versus Twain". If you wish me to work on it, I will be happy to do so, but you have to ask. I'm unemployed, and not in a good mood (especially to subject myself to Christian Science). WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Mark Twain was stupid and a shallow satirist. How dare he hone in on Mother's turf. 76.105.254.23 (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Balance
Well I see nothing has changed, Digitalcan I move that you are positing bias in favor of moderate positive light in this article and should be removed from the project, as such a bias destroys the neutrality of this article. Do Go, don't let the info filtering intimidate you, Facts are facts, regardless of what anyone writes.

I would also reccomend telling your friends to avoid using wikipedia as a viable info resource, for the simple fact that the "no original research" essentially undermines the nature of an Encyclopedia; that is to say only "sponsored" material is acceptable...and by sponsored I mean exactly that while wikipedia does not contain advertisements overtly, it does sponsor points of view and information filtering towards certain lines of thought (depending on the article). Also Balance, as it stands, raises the image of a Scale, which has something on one side, and something on the other, Balance is maintained by equal portions of each, the term "balance" therefore cannot be used in this context by those who would say that balance is not what it is, et al. who have the rather insane notion that Balance is something that doesn't involve sides, which is tantamount to saying the Nile has nothing to do with Egypt. Plainly said, without a scale there is no means of determining balance and thus anyone can apply any meaning to it to suit their intentions.

In my continued watching of this article I've seen various edits, that are indeed truthful if one goes right to the sources, and anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this. Also on the note of Hinduism, anyone that has a remote understanding of the religion knows that one of it's concepts is "Maya" or that our world, physical reality, is in fact, an illusion, this is greatly magnified in Buddhist schools of thought. This is where Quimby started and began to formulate his "New Thought" religion from, and in turn, from Quimby so too was Eddy influenced, stripping the concepts to suit and attempting to put a "Christian" spin on it; thus it is not in error to say she was influenced by Hinduism, but if one must specify directly or indirectly then so be it, but do NOT censor it or claim it is not relevant to this article.

Another point is that, biographical material, to be accurate, must include information on the things that were a large influence on the person; information I might add, that must be pro and con. The Reason for this? Because a person is inexorbly tied to these influences, as the influence is tied to the person. To write a biography of Darwin, and not mention the theory of evolution, for example, would be an inaccurate and thus flawed biography...to write it and make only mention in positive light (or shades close to, as often happens with this very article.) also to write it purely with a negative light would be equally in error. To be proper and unbiased, a biography must, therefore, contain both positive and negative. Continue as you are Do go, don't let former (or possibly not?) members of the CoS quash your resolve to be accurate and truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.228.32 (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No original research is a Wikipedia rule. What it does is prevent people who 'think' they know something (but don't) from inserting their opinions as fact. What this has to do with "sponsorship" I can't fathom.

"Balance," too is not a wikipedia concept. Those are your words. Wikipedia articles strive for a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) which is not the same thing as balance. We've been through this before. One can write about Darwin and describe his theory without going into the arguments pro and con. Argumentation is best done elsewhere and is not encyclopaedic.

I thought you'd left this argument 7 months ago. If not, I'm happy to resume where we left off.

Digitalican (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

digitalcan,

At this point, I'm here to ensure the facts stay in this article, oh and as you may remember, my IP is Dynamic (look it up.) which means I can and will redact any attempts at censorship that you or any other medcab chump attempts, for as long as I have IPs with which to use. so perhaps the phrase "Ya can't stop me, boy!" would fit in this general area and even then there are of course proxies of other dynamic IPs and others besides myself are keeping an eye on this as well. Oh and by the way, this time I'm not going to abide childish wiki-rules as going that route will result in nothing, as per usual.

The end result of this will most likely be a locked article, which will display to the people thatthe article has been censored, hardly fit for an encyclopedia, also I should perhaps add, just in case you forgot, that Dynamic IP means you can ban one, that's hunky dorey, because I can and will come back with another one...see the futility yet? The best route is to leave this alone despite the rather misguided wiki-notions held by some, your choice.

To all the others reading this, who think that the ties to new thought and hinduism should be preserved and that things lacking evidence (such as the pro-biased point of view that this insane woman influenced Christianity or Theology at all, or was even remotely a philosopher of any grade.) feel free to help the cause.

-Thanatos The Scythe Bearer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.228.32 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Article semi-protected, and IP blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Called in the gestapo I see? lol look, what part of Dynamic IP do you guys not understand, I have an essentially endless amount at my disposal, and no bunch of elitists hiding behind their pseudo-power can be a hinderance. also: Jihad, y'all. >D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.115.141 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While a range block would be technically possible, it would probably be excessive, given the article is semi-protected. However, I'm glad you have explained your thoughts on the article here. PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of language?
This article starts..."Mary Baker Eddy was a mental retard..." Really! Who uses that terminology and is this an appropriate or accurate description? It certainly isn't politically correct. Was she developmentally disabled? Have learning disabilities? The intro has me dismiss anything else written. If possible...help me understand. Thanks. Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdurnin (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The term, "mental retard", aside from its lack of political correctness, is not supported by citations or even common myths regarding Mary Baker Eddy. As a former Christian Scientist and the co-moderator of a site opposed to Christian Science, I have access to a lot of information and misinformation regarding Mary Baker Eddy. Applying "mental retard" appears to be only a way to insult her and does not further the cause of accurately portraying the true nature of her teachings. Do go be man (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor who continues to insert "mental retard" in the article needs to cite the claim, express it properly, and discuss it on the talk page. He will otherwise continue to be considered a vandal. Google produces no reasonable hits supporting the claim including "Aslem Boston Hospital". Mary Baker Eddy had many faults, but this claim is not supported. Perhaps it's time to report the edit war. Do go be man (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor under discussion might consider reviewing Wikipedia guidelines for providing references, if he considers his sources and information valid. Do go be man (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not an edit war, it is simple vandalism and should not be dignified. I've reported it. Digitalican (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to be uncharacteristically polite and assume good faith. I posted it in Editor Assistance as the next escalation step. Do go be man (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Twain OR and need cite
At the end of the section that discusses Mark Twain, the last paragraph appears to include original research and is followed by a quote for which the source is not cited. If this is not OR, then we need to get a reliable source to cite it. Regarding the quote, we need to track down its source and cite it. WilliamKF (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Albert Paine would know when Twain was being sarcastic given their close relationship. WilliamKF (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think you have legitimate sources, cite them. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm a fairly knowledgeable critic of Mary Baker Eddy and have never heard that claim before it appeared in this context. Do go be man (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

References, Neutrality, Weasel Words
OK, I'm not going to re-remove the tags but I did applaud their removal. These tags condemn article while, themselves, remaining content-free (and requiring no responsibility on the part of the tagger.)

Neutrality
I've been around on Wikipedia long enough to know that neutrality is very much in the eye of the beholder. One man's meat is another man's poison and I do not believe that perfect neutrality on any subject can be defined to everyone's satisfaction, much less achieved. Again, while there are areas that can be worked on in this article it is neither a paeon nor a condemnation and doesn't deserve the tag.
 * Again, let's try to move this to specific sections and not condemn the whole article. WilliamKF (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words
Someone tell me what and where where these are, please.
 * Some biographers[who?] have suggested Mary was high strung or emotional... WilliamKF (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect is often the enemy of good. Unless someone can defend these tags in a reasonable and specific way without using glittering generalities and unless someone will take some responsibility for correcting them I suggest we remove them in, say, a week. It's way too easy to paint an article with a broad brush (and that, itself, becomes a way of condemning it) without being realistic.

Digitalican (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that perfect is often the enemy of good (an ironic statement to make in the context of Christian Science). I made some bold edits to the introductory paragraph to see if something could be done to improve the article as suggested.

Do go be man (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed descriptions such as "Deeply religious" and "much" (regarding teaching, lecturing, and healing)
 * It would be useless and ineffective to remove a mention of claims regarding healing as that is something for which she was known whether valid or not
 * Listed accomplishments in a bullet list to avoid run on sentences and "she this/she that"
 * Included dates for accomplishments
 * Added "citation needed" where statements appeared to need support
 * Did not include "citation needed" for statements supported by linked articles
 * Did not take the time to provide citations leaving that to another editor
 * Added links to years
 * Did not add links to birth date and date of death as other biographical articles do not appear to follow that practice


 * Thanks for these edits, but I think it may be too detailed for the lead, perhaps some of this should be moved later? WilliamKF (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Style
Without getting into the content, I have found some elements of the style of this article confusing to read. The article is easier to read if you refer to the subject consistently as 'Eddy' eventhough her name changed with each marriage. Since her husband and son had the same name, I used 'her son' to identify which George was being discussed. WP:MOS suggests that italics be used to designated book titles, but not quotations. Here the full quotes are in italics but the book titles are not. This can be distracting to the reader. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Addressed the italics for book titles and dropping them for quotes. WilliamKF (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

POV PROBEM
... still exists. How about making it a neutral article? 62.57.50.138 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Death
Cjbroggi added some interesting text regarding Eddy's death, some of which I've never heard in spite of more than 50 years of association with Christian Science. Citations are needed to support the statements. The speculation regarding covering up her death needs to be substantiated. I understand that the official church position regarding the telephone is that the contractor needed it to communicate with his office or that security guards needed it. Cjbrogg mentions researchers. What researchers, when, where, etc.? What "credible sources"? What "numerous letters of the day"? Do go be man (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find any particular research that affirms a telephone was installed in Mary Baker Eddy's coffin, but I can find a number of articles that state one was not. So, how long do we keep undocumented and possibly specious claims around before consigning them to the virtual trash bin?  Digitalican (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Were I not known by those associated with Christian Science, I would have already deleted the unsupported assertions. Do go be man (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, since most think I'm an apologist for CS I've gone ahead and cleaned it up, retaining the verifiable facts and references. Digitalican (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Question
I'm sure if I spent the time, I could dig up an answer to my question. Is it appropriate and best practices to delete discussions on talk pages? Doing so appears to me a form of censorship except in the most grievous cases of vandalism. I ask this in the context of the deletion of the "Mental Retardation" section. I agree the issue likely lacks merit in spite of my outspoken criticism of Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy. I do not, however, believe in censorship and did not see the comment on this page as having risen to the level of grievous vandalism. In fact, deleting it plays right into the apparent goals of those attempting to disrupt the content. Please keep in mind that this question and my comments apply to talk pages, not articles. I understand and agree that the claim has no place in the article unless it can be credibly verified. Do go be man (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right that it is not normal to remove talk page comments. The post was removed because it is corrosive vandalism and trolling that has been going on for some time on this article and its talk page and was in no way a constructive attempt at discussion.  My apologies for also deleting your reply, I did so because it would have made little sense without the original comment.  There is no attempt here at censorship, if you think the issue genuinely warrants discussion, the post can be restored.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Do go be man emphatically about censorship I tend to think that responding to trolls grants their activity a dignity it doesn't deserve. Engaging with them in any substantive way seems only to encourage them. Digitalican (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but...?
How did this woman come by the name "Eddy"? The article neglects to mention this, saying she was born to parents name Baker and later married men named Grover and Patterson. So, who was Eddy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.113 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy was born Mary Ann Morse Baker which was her real name. She then married George Washington Glover and became Mary Glover. 1844 Glovers move to Wilmington, NC.George Washington Glover dies. Mary Glover returns to parents’ home and her first and only child, George W. Glover, is born. In 1853, Mary Baker Glover married Daniel Patterson. She then became Mary Patterson. 1866 Daniel Patterson Deserts her. 1873 After 20 years of marriage, wins divorce from Daniel Patterson on grounds of desertion. In 1877 she married Asa Gilbert Eddy, and became known as Mary Baker Eddy. 1882 Asa Gilbert Eddy died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.131 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy supported Capital Punishment
This is Mary Baker Eddy's own words:

"One of the greatest crimes practiced in, or known to, the ages is mental assassination."

Mary Baker Eddy supported capital punishment of murderers, they should be hung or electrocuted.

Mary Baker eddy's own words:

"The time has come for instructing human justice so that those secret criminals shall tumble before the Omnipotent finger, who will point them out to the human executioner." (Christian Science Journal, February 1889)

Of course the current modern day "Christian Science Mother Church" deny Mary Baker Eddy ever wrote this. But after tracking it down, it is real, Mary Baker Eddy wrote it. The modern day CS Mother Church are nothing but liars, they have completey edited and changed many of Mary Baker Eddy's teachings. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't there any mention of her involement with (her lawyer helped launch it and she testified at it) the last US witch trial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.178.54 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Alleged" Healing
I can understand how Christian Scientists can object to referring to the infamous slip on the ice as an "alleged" healing. The fact that she attempted to sue the town for damages, however, calls the healing into question. Do go be man (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your logic. People who have healed still sue all the time, for pain and suffering and for inconvenience.  It isn't our job to discern the veracity of the claim -- that's original research. Words like "alleged," "supposed," "perceived," become weasel-words and effectively POV.  Now, if an authoritative source (no slippery slope implied here) can state she was not injured, I'll buy the "alleged" claim.  Digitalican (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Alleged indicates there was a claim of a healing that cannot be validated by the writer. As a reporter, I had to report on crimes and criminals as "alleged" until there guilt was determined in court. Mary Baker Eddy claimed to have been healed from injuries resulting from her slip on the ice. I didn't see her slip and have never, in spite of 30 years as a loyal Christian Scientist, saw evidence that her injuries were as severe as claimed. Lacking reasonable evidence, I consider the healing alleged. I understand the problem of saying so in this context and don't care that much one way or the other. The clincher on "alleged", however, is that she herself stated that her injuries were unhealed, permanent, as the basis of her suit against the town of Lynn. So, Mary Baker Eddy represented her "healing" at different levels depending on the context. Was she healed or not? If healed, she was on the edge of perjury in her lawsuit. If not healed, as presented in the lawsuit, she perjured herself elsewhere. Do go be man (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No matter how this is couched, it seems an  ad hominem  argument. In the face of concrete evidence, the NPOV approach is to accept what is reported.  I have doubts myself, but since they can't be substantiated I need to leave it alone. Digitalican (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem leaving out "alleged", however, do not consider it an ad hominem argument. Mary Baker Eddy documented the healing in question in her writings and represented it as a healing. She also filed suit in a court of law representing the injury as permanent, not the healing documented in her writings. She alleged the healing and she alleged the permanence of her injury.

In the case of reporters writing about police accounts versus the innocent until proven guilty, at least we have different people telling different stories. In this case, we have documentation originating from the same person alleging the impact of the same incident on herself calling the healing into question. Thus "alleged" seems a valid representation of the conflicting documentation as we cannot be sure of which representation is true. Do go be man (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You cannot be healed of something that does not exist. The lawsuit in and of itself is contrary to the "little books" teaching.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdoc63 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know that there has been dispute as to whether the injury took place. That's really another argument.  I do think there is an assumption that healing is a binary proposition -- either one is healed or one is not -- an assumption which may not reflect reality.  To wit:  I broke my ankle severely some years ago.  In that the bone has knitted and I can walk, the injury has healed.  In that it is sometimes painful and I occasionally limp, it has not.  Am I healed or not?


 * "Alleged" is in any case a loaded word. One could substitute "reported" and have the same nuance.  Digitalican (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Samuel L Clemens - Mark Twain: Christian Science (essay)
Please note the essay mentioned in the subject. A widely respected essayist of her own timeperiod wrote a scathing expose and is not mentioned in the official article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdoc63 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Jasper the man whom refused advil
I was not aware that Jasper the elder refused to take the advil, and his back pain was cured through witchcraft! SpinningSpark is possibly the host of hosts. Danzle Wolf, Hick - BIRD.

98--ii//h38?Wtfgyh?A:Tltsmhhijwalt.

Prove this and yips will dwell again in the north of London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.243.131 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

MBE's Father and Religion
"Amid their clash of views Mary developed a fever, which at last prompted her father, in his love for her, to set aside his stern beliefs." This gives the impression that Eddy's father abandoned Calvinism, which is highly unlikely. He may have stopped trying to inflict his beliefs on his daughter, which is a different thing. I don't know if this is an accurate reflection of the source though, so I'm leaving it in for the moment. If someone with more time than I have could check this, please do.Be-nice:-) (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Eddy was a spiritualist
Eddy was a spiritualist up until around 1870 (or atleast attending seances) and eyewitness accounts confirm it. A user added that she was opposing spiritualism in 1864. This is false becuase in this year she was claiming to channel spirits. See the overall consensus on the matter in books by Braude, Podmore, Gardner etc. Fodor Fan (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The point about Eddy opposing spiritualism in 1864 was made by a reputable author, Robert Peel. It's true that he was a Christian Scientist, but I presume that doesn't disqualify him from being cited, any more than being Catholic would disqualify a reputable Catholic author from being cited in the article on Catholicism. I don't know of any rule that states that only the consensus is permitted to be referenced. If one exists, let us know. Otherwise the editor should stop deleting the text in question.89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And see this: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Academic_consensus89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have already told you mate, the consensus does not support your view. You have already admitted to be a Christian Scientist so I understand your bias, and your edit history is notorious for edit warring. We have 8 reliable sources written by scholars concluding that Eddy was a spiritualist up until the 1870s. We don't add in, a single source claiming otherwise contradicting those other sources. Martin Gardner has shot down Peel's claims and we have eyewitness reports concluding that Eddy was attending seances as late as 1872. Fodor Fan (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thing, are you Bridge bendek? If so why not post on your account, why on the IP? Also the Peel claim itself looks like original research and not actually what the source says. Fodor Fan (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "mate". Are you using that in an ironic British sense that means the opposite? If so, I don't appreciate it. The policies clearly state that we need a source to state that something is a consensus. It's not enough for us to come to that conclusion. Furthermore, we do not necessarily confine edits to the consensus. Your ad hominem equation of being a Christian Scientist with being biased is unwarranted and does not assume good faith (as per Wikipedia policies). As for your other ad hominem assertion that my history is notorious for edit warring, I don't accept it. If it looks that way, it may be down to the fact that the editors critical of (or hostile to) CS greatly exceed the number that are sympathetic to it. (In any case, it usually takes two to get into an edit war.) I don't know who Bridge bendek is and it's not me. Original research is acceptable if undertaken by Peel--he is a source and not a Wikipedia contributer. If Gardner has shot him down, then of course that should be included as well. I suggest you study the Wikipedia policies and guidelines more carefully. Have a nice day--I don't have time for this stuff at the moment.89.100.155.6 (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The material recently removed from the spiritualism section should be included. Most of the sources in this section rely upon either Frederick Peabody (who supplied a substantial amount of information to Milmine) or Milmine. Both Podmore and Gardner state that Milmine is their primary source for material covering this period of Eddy's life and the sentence footnoted as Ankerberg is from Frederick Peabody according to Ankerberg's footnotes. From a neutrality standpoint, material from other sources that present another viewpoint should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridge bendek (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Bridge bendek (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RSUW and WP:NPOV you keep adding in Christian Science sources to represent a fringe view, this is undue weight and is contradicted by the majority consensus view on the subject. Fodor Fan (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Archive talk
This talk page is quite long and could benefit from archiving to separate topics being actively discussed from ones that are old. I've seen some other pages that use MiszaBot for this purpose and I can work on setting up that system. However, before doing so I wanted to establish consensus as to whether this is needed here (it seems obvious to me, but I should ask).Wikiuser1239 (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added the bot to archive after 30 days (that would be 30 days after the last signature in any given thread), but you can extend that if you like. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Eddy's teachings about marriage
Eddy did not teach that marriage is to be opposed. The section which states this is incorrect and I am removing that paragraph. If someone wants to add information about Eddy's views on marriage please comment here first to discuss what Eddy's views on marriage actually were, rather than just restoring factually incorrect statements. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section
The criticism section risks devolving into an indiscriminate list of complaints rather than focusing on notable aspects of Eddy's life. Some of the criticisms listed are noteworthy and could be better integrated with the article. However, the " criticism for including bizarre incidents and controversial stories" does not seem noteworthy to me as something that should appear in an encyclopedia. If other editors disagree please explain your reasoning if you wish to restore this material. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

British Israelism
The section on British Israelism promotes a position that I do not recall reading outside of Wikipedia. I have read Gill's biography of Eddy and also Fraser's book "God's Perfect Child." I also have some familiarity with other writings about Eddy. The section on British Israelism seems to be drawn primarily from the book "Religion and the Racist Right." I have not read that book so I am not in a position to evaluate its reliability. It sounds like the book is probably a reliable source; however, I am concerned about the fact that I have not heard thesis discussed in other sources which studied Eddy. The policy of WP:UNDUE is that Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. I would like to see something from scholars who have studied Eddy's history, and in particular have the question of why this thesis is not discussed by Eddy's biographer's answered. If this subject has not been analyzed by any other scholars then I would argue for removing this particular section from the Wikipedia article about Eddy. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal of this; it seemed a little UNDUE. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikiuser1239, Timothy Miller is not fringe source. It seems you have a long history of removing criticism of MBE on this article and the Christian Science article. There seems to be some users doing the same (any of them could be sockpuppets):


 * Be-nice:-) (talk)
 * Wikiuser1239 (talk)
 * 89.100.155.6 (talk)
 * Bridge bendek (talk)
 * GruessGott (talk)

A check through the history of the article also reveals you have had disputes with other editors about removing content, you admitted to being a Christian Scientist so your agenda appears to be adding in POV or deleting criticism of Eddy based on your personal belief. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not have sock puppets, and I do not know the history of the other editors you have mentioned. As for material that I've removed the reason is that it is not supported by mainstream scholarship on the subject.  You are advancing a fringe position here.  The source that you mentioned may well be a respected scholar, but the material on British Israelism is not mentioned by Eddy's biographers, which is why having such a large section about it is WP:UNDUE.  You should edit the section to make it more concise if you do want this topic to remain.  Although really I don't think it warrants more than a sentence or two.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser1239 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not just Timothy Miller who has written on MBE's British Israelism, Robert Peel also covered it, see the source Peel, Robert. 1980. Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority. Holt, Rinehart and Winston which was a biography of eddy. Also see the other source cited Barkun, Michael. 1996. Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement. The University of North Carolina Press, pp. 26-28. How is Michael Barkun a fringe source? 82.1.154.153 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What does Peel say about MBE and British Israelism? I have not read Peel's biography of Eddy, but I have heard that it is quite lengthy and comprehensive.  I saw that there was a citation from Peel quoting Eddy, but Eddy often used symbolism in her writings, so it's not clear to me what the quote was supposed to mean.  AS I've noted the sources that I've read about Eddy have not mentioned British Israelism.  I would like to know if any biographer of Eddy specifically discusses this topic. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you click on the users above I cited as sockpuppets they all display similar behavioral edits and patterns, and there are some *give aways* i.e. clues that at least some of them are the same person. I am suspicious about these users. Hopefully you can understand why I have raised that issue. Check their edit histories they are very similar. As for the British Israelism issue, Peel mentions it in his book on two or three pages. He basically says Eddy was involved in it but later lost her interest in it. I am far too busy to get involved in this, so I will drop the issue. If other users want to get involved they can (but I doubt they will). We will leave that section out for now but perhaps someone else can review it. 82.1.154.153 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I haven't looked at the edit histories of the other users you listed so I have no idea if any of them are sock puppets or not. As I said my concern about the British Isrealism material was that I had not heard about it anywhere outside of this Wikipedia article.  Choosing what to include can be tricky, especially in controversial articles.  Perhaps some day this article will be in better shape, for now it's hard to know which tweaks to make.  I don't have time to make major changes to it either, the edits that I have made were relatively minor cleanup of information that seemed obviously incorrect or UNDUE, and I felt the latter applied to this section. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Saddening to read this page of Mary Baker Eddy... I have been a lifelong Christian Scientist and now understand probably more than I wish I had to.
This Story of Mary Baker Eddy is deeply distressing but I am open to "Waking Up To Reality Wherever It Is". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.71.215 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Morphine
The present paragraph regarding morphine is misleading.

The Frye diary made a statement in May of 1910 of what Adam Dickey said, “that it was the old morphine habit reasserting itself.” Gillian Gill in her biography of Eddy discusses this point thoroughly (See Gill pages 545-546). Adam Dickey had known Eddy only for a few years. As Gill says: “Of all the people who were close to Mrs. Eddy in August 1910, only one, Calvin Frye, had known her since the 1880s, and the handful of other references to Mrs. Eddy taking morphine in Frye’s diary make it clear that she was using the drug only at moments of unbearable pain.” (Gill page 546)

Peel in his book Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority comes to the same conclusion as Gill, that she received morphine injections from a doctor for relief from pain. (See Peel pages 462-63, footnotes 79 and 80.)

Both Gill (page 655 footnote 19) and Peel (Years of Trial pages 335-36, footnote 26) discuss Miranda Rice and both make the same point, that she is not a credible witness, although Peel has much more information to share, making the reasons quite clear. The information shows that while Rice was a friend in the 1870’s and early 1880’s she became antagonistic to Eddy and Christian Science in the early 1880’s (see also pages 95-96 in Peel) and gave her comments to the New York World some 25 years later. Bridge bendek (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what all of the sources say about this topic, I am most familiar with Gill's biography of Eddy and it's clear that Gill's assessment does not concur with what the article currently says. I saw that you attempted to edit this section before and had it reverted.  My suggestion is to state your proposed edit in the talk page.  That will allow editors who have an opinion on it to comment and suggest change rather than just reverting it.  Also I would prefer not to see material lumped into a criticism section.  It would be better to incorporate it in the flow of the article when appropriate.  In this case I would be in favor of a Morphine Use section which would include relevant details about Eddy's use of morphine and its relationship to her teachings. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the proposed revision:


 * Rumors were spread that Eddy was addicted to opium.[98] But she used the drug only at moments of unbearable pain.[99] This is made clear by Calvin Frye, who was close to Eddy and knew her from the 1880s to 1910.[100] His diary indicated that a dose was given on a few known occasions from 1903-06 and three known occasions from 1909-10 when she had injections of one-eighth or one-quarter of a grain.[101] Martin Gardner claimed that the diary kept by Calvin Frye, Eddy's personal secretary, revealed that she was addicted to morphine, and had a lifelong dependence on morphine pills and shots.[102]


 * Miranda Rice was the individual most frequently cited as the source of the addiction rumors, but she was not a credible witness.[103] No evidence was produced to support the claim of addiction.[104] According to Fleta Springer, Miranda Rice, a friend and close student of Eddy claimed to have treated her hundreds of times with morphine. Rice wrote "I know that Mrs. Eddy was addicted to morphine in the seventies. She begged me to get some for her. She sent her husband, Mr. Eddy, for some; and when he failed to get it she got it herself. She locked herself into her room and for two days excluded everyone."[105] However, biographer Gillian Gill notes that the prescription of morphine was normal medical practice at the time, and that in her view Mary Baker Eddy was at no time addicted to morphine.[106]


 * 98. Gill, Gillian. Mary Baker Eddy. Perseus Books, 1998, p. 655, note 19.
 * 99. Gill, Gillian. Mary Baker Eddy. Perseus Books, 1998, p. 546.
 * 100.	Gill, Gillian. Mary Baker Eddy. Perseus Books, 1998, p. 546.
 * 101.	Peel, Robert. Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977, p. 463, note 80.
 * 102.	Gardner, Martin. 1993. The Healing Revelations of Mary Baker Eddy. Prometheus Books.
 * 103.	Gill, Gillian. Mary Baker Eddy. Perseus Books, 1998, p. 655, note 19.
 * 104.	Peel, Robert. Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Trial. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971, p. 335, note 26.
 * 105.	Springer, Fleta. 1930. According to the Flesh: A Biography of Mary Baker Eddy. Coward-McCann, inc., p. 299
 * 106.	Gillian Gill, Mary Baker Eddy, Radcliffe Biography Series, MA: Merloyd Lawrence / Perseus Books, p. 546


 * Bridge bendek (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty POV. The claim that she is addicted to morphine likely should not be put in the voice of wikipedia if there are conflicting accounts. You're suggesting to put the opposite claim in the voice of wikipedia, which is POV. I would suggest to add the Martin Gardner claimed qualifier to the existing content. Is that ok, or you have any specific objections beyond that? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the proposed revision is POV. Unfortunately the existing text is as well.  In general I think that criticism section is poorly organized and it would be better to move relevant parts of it to other parts of the article.  Also in my view simply attributing the existing claim to Gardner is not really solving the problem.  The fact that Eddy used morphine as a medicine seems well established, but the claim that she was addicted to morphine does not seem credible. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Morphine addiction
Hi all,

I was on here a short time before assimilating the conflict of interest guidelines. Now that I think I have all of my COI ducks in a row, I am returning! I have a professional relationship to this subject. I will refrain from editing and will only contribute to the Talk page according to the guidelines.

Hopefully with that squared away, I'd like to help get the morphine addiction discussion going again. It seemed all agreed the treatment of morphine use isn't neutral. Wanted to provide some info to kick start the conversation again. Thank you!

What is known about Eddy and her morphine use from Gillian Gill’s biography, Mary Baker Eddy, and Robert Peel’s three books of biography of Eddy indicates that she did not use the drug except on a few occasions when a physician administered or prescribed it when Eddy was in extreme pain.

In 1853, when Eddy was in pain, she took morphine, but Eddy, in a letter of that time, stated that she “so much disapprove[d]” of the use of morphine and switched to different remedies. (Peel Yrs. of Discovery, 111.)

In 1866, after her fall on the ice, the physician gave Eddy morphine which put her into a deep sleep indicating that she was not used to the drug. (Peel Yrs. of Discovery, 345 Footnote 6.)

Calvin Frye, who was with Eddy from 1882 to her death in 1910, records in his diary a few uses of morphine administered by a physician during the years 1903-1906, and then 3 times in the 1909-1910 period. The diary is specific as to the amount of morphine. Gillian Gill in her biography of Eddy concludes after reviewing Frye’s diary: “of all the people who were close to Mrs. Eddy in August 1910, only one, Calvin Frye, had known her since the 1880s, and the handful of other references to Mrs. Eddy taking morphine in Frye’s diary make it clear that she was using the drug only at moments of unbearable pain.” (Gill page 546). Robert Peel comes to the same conclusion as Gill. (Peel, Yrs. of Authority 462, Footnotes 79 and 80.)

Martin Gardner, in his book critical of Eddy, The Healing Revelations of Mary Baker Eddy, based on a statement in Frye’s diary in May of 1910 by Adam Dickey, a more recent helper in the household, where Dickey said: “it was the old morphine habit reasserting itself,” concludes that this indicates Eddy had a lifelong dependence on morphine. The facts listed above do not indicate this.

The other claim against Eddy of morphine addiction was from Miranda Rice, a disaffected student who turned against Eddy in the early 1880s. Peel notes in his book, Years of Trial, that the New York World sent reporters to find confirmation of this accusation in Lynn, MA, and could find none, other than a friend of Miranda Rice. Both Gill and Peel conclude that Rice was not a credible witness. (Gill 655, Footnote 19 and Peel, Yrs of Trial 335, Footnote 26.)

I look forward to your response. Thank you! Bridge bendek COI 18:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am replying to address one statement: "the physician gave Eddy morphine which put her into a deep sleep indicating that she was not used to the drug." I would argue that for Wikipedia's purposes, this constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS since we are drawing a conclusion that is not expressly stated in the source. And I'm not sure which logical fallacy this represents, but the statement is drawing a conclusion based on a fact you are asking us to assume is true, that morphine addicts don't fall asleep when they dose. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The entire criticism section is poorly structured, but then there are a lot of things that are problematic about this article. I have added sections to it so that it easier to read.


 * As for the morphine claim, I think there are two things to consider. First is that Eddy's use of morphine was inconsistent with her teachings.  So whether she was addicted or not that was something that would open her up to criticism.  It does seem unlikely that she had a "lifelong dependence" on morphine.  However, I have only read Gill's statement about this, I have not read the Gardner source.  I think it would be best for someone who is familiar with more of the sources to rewrite the criticism of Eddy related to Morphine.  As currently written the section does not conform to NPOV, but the fact that Eddy used morphine is a valid criticism so I would not want to completely remove that section from the article. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The following is a quotation from Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy, p. 464: "If from an injury or from any cause, a Christian Scientist were seized with pain so violent that he could not treat himself mentally,--and the Scientists had failed to relieve him,--the sufferer could call a surgeon, who would give him a hypodermic injection, then, when the belief of pain was lulled, he could handle his own case mentally. Thus it is that we 'prove all things; [and] hold fast that which is good.'" (The square brackets are in the original; the gender-specific language was common for the time.) Anyway, the point is that it is not true that Mary Baker Eddy's use of morphine was inconsistent with her teachings. Perhaps I may be allowed a personal observation here. In nearly 40 years of reliance on CS, I have almost always been able to rely on it to alleviate (or completely get rid of) pain. The only exceptions were some dental problems (and in fact if my dentist prescribes pain killers I take them, since I don't believe it's up to me to tell him how to do his job). By and large though, I haven't had to trouble the medical profession for anything for the best part of my life, saving a considerable amount of money in the process.Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Eddy's use of morphine is consistent with the rest of her teachings is debatable. However, it's indisputable that her use of morphine is a controversial subject.  So I think that the topic should remain in the article.  Ideally the article would not have a "criticism" section, but instead the noteworthy topics included in this section would be properly integrated in the article.  But until someone is able to make major changes to the article it is probably best for the criticism section to remain.


 * Ideally someone who has read more than just Gill's account should rewrite the morphine use section so that it conforms to NPOV. But if there aren't any other active editors I might make changes based on what I've read of Gill and the quotes that are included from Gardner in the existing article. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Break
There is some stuff in the Peel biographies on this. He is coming from the CS POV, which I share. Though I have to admit he occasionally bends over backwards in favour of his subject. (Actually I met him once, back in the seventies of the last century - a lovely guy.) I'm not that familiar with the more critical material, so I can't help you there.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The best thing would be simply to list which primary sources said what. The danger with relying on secondary sources is that we're repeating their interpretation, rather than what was actually said. Usually it's over-reliance on primary sources that causes problems on WP, but in a case like this using the primary sources might be the safest thing. Gill, for example, writes:


 * "Experts in pain control have often pointed out that there is an important difference between morphine addicts and those people who are given occasional morphine medications for pain. This is especially true in a historical period, as in Mrs. Eddy's lifetime, when the prescription of such medications was standard practice. [There is then a sentence about Frye and Dittemore.] Although I cannot account for the remark Frye attributed to Dickey, I remain convinced that Mary Baker Eddy was never addicted to morphine."


 * The experts in pain control are not named, and her argument seems unlikely. I can't make any sense of the next part. She seems to be saying that if a highly addictive substance is given regularly via prescription, the patient won't become addicted to it. I would caution against relying on any secondary interpretation like this (Gill's or anyone's), and just describe what was said. Secondary sources can be used to discuss what the primary sources said, so long as they're not adding themselves to the mix. Any claims about how addictive morphine is (or isn't) would need a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"She seems to be saying that if a highly addictive substance is given regularly via prescription, the patient won't become addicted to it." She isn't saying that at all, SlimVirgin. The word she uses is "occasional" not "regular." Also I'm not sure what you mean by primary and secondary sources in this context. Gill is a secondary source, Eddy is a primary source. Do you have something else in mind? And why the sudden preference for primary sources in any case, which goes directly against WP guidelines?Be-nice:-) (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, she says: "This is especially true in a historical period, as in Mrs. Eddy's lifetime, when the prescription of such medications was standard practice." So the implication seems to be that the more it was prescribed, the fewer people would become addicted. Of course that can't be what she intended, but I can't extract any other meaning from it.


 * Primary sources are allowed on WP; they just have to be used with caution and sparingly. In this case, where all we want is a description and no analysis (X said this, Y said that), relying on primary sources would work well. (We know it has been discussed by secondary sources, so needing secondary sources for notability isn't an issue.) Otherwise, all we'll have is Gardner saying she was addicted, and Gill saying she wasn't, where neither is in a position to know. I'm not saying we can't use secondary sources (of course we can), but examples like the one I gave, of Gill adding her own opinion based on a very unclear argument, is the kind of thing to avoid, whether from Gill or anyone else.


 * The truth is that no one is in a position to know whether she was addicted (including perhaps Eddy), and in what sense she was, if any, so all we can do is report the claims of people who knew her. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is why the current statement in the article that Frye "... revealed that she was addicted to morphine, and had a lifelong dependence on morphine pills and shots" is misleading. As you said, the truth is we don't know.  But as written the article sounds like we do, and it does not have a NPOV.


 * As for the idea of just using primary sources I think the problem with that is that we don't know the context about how they were written. What is it exactly that Frye wrote?  And what were Rice's motivations for saying what she did.  Plus there are other pieces of evidence that might have appeared if Eddy was addicted to morphine.  My point is that trying to explain the controversy within the context of primary source material is basically original research.  We know that the question of whether Eddy was addicted to morphine is a controversial one that does not have a definitive answer from scholars who have studied Eddy.  So it is better to state this fact and perhaps say what different scholars believed and summarize there arguments if appropriate.  You might think that Gill's argument is flawed, but she is a scholar who studied the subject and that is the conclusion that she arrived at given the evidence she found during her research. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's OR if we start analysing it. It would be helpful if someone could lay out here which primary sources said what, along with a citation.


 * Gill's book isn't a scholarly work, btw (though we can still use it, of course). But to report her conclusion we have to know what it means: "Experts in pain control have often pointed out that there is an important difference between morphine addicts and those people who are given occasional morphine medications for pain. This is especially true in a historical period, as in Mrs. Eddy's lifetime, when the prescription of such medications was standard practice."


 * I wouldn't know how to paraphrase that (if you can suggest how to rephrase it, that would be helpful; perhaps I'm just missing something obvious). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point. My point is that I don't think the current article is a good summary of what we do know.  I don't know what Gill mean by her "experts in pain control" statement, and I'm not knowledgeable about the subject myself.  But Gill does have a point in regard to Dickey being a relatively new member of the household so he would not have even been in a position to know if she had a life long addiction to morphine.  I only have Gill's biography so I don't have access to any more sources than you.  If anyone else has more sources and would like to add quotes to this discussion I agree that would be helpful for discussing how to improve the article. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We have Frye reporting what Dickey said: "... he believed she did not need it, but that it was the old morphine habit reasserting itself and would not allow her to have it." Frye had known her since the 1880s. Perhaps the words "old morphine habit" were his. If they were Dickey's words, Frye did not write: "What on earth was Dickey talking about? What morphine habit?" To dismiss what Dickey (may have said) on the grounds that he was relatively new seems like sophistry. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To a certain extent I think this gets back to why it's better to rely on secondary sources when presenting material about a controversial topic. We have the quote from Frye's diary, but now we don't know whether Frye is speaking for himself, or entirely quoting Dickey.  And then if it's just a quote of Dickey there's the question of why didn't Frye comment on it more.  This is further clouded by the fact that we're only looking at the small excerpt that Dittermore chose to make available.  Gill's study of Eddy required looking at much more than just this evidence, and her conclusion was that the morphine addiction claims were false. Gill may be wrong in her conclusion.  But how do we know?  What do other sources say about this and what are their reasons for their conclusions?  The quote from Frye is not definitive and either way that it is interpreted it raises questions (for instance Gill says that the claim of morphine addiction is not consistent with other parts of Frye's diary).


 * I'm not necessarily opposed to including Frye's exact quote, but I disagree with how it is currently paraphrased. If Frye's quote is included I think it should have additional context.  Which may be too much detail for the article so I'm open to other suggestions. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't need to know who Frye was quoting; we can simply report what he said. So we would say something like: There were persistent rumors that Eddy was addicted to morphine (cite the contemporaneous secondary sources that claimed this). These rumours were based on (cite the primary sources). The problem with Gill's book is that the manuscript was shown in advance of publication to the church (and parts of it had to be approved in exchange for her access to the archives), she adds her personal opinion a lot, and in this case it's difficult to work out what she means. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by Gill's work not being scholarly. I've read it and it seems scholarly enough to me. (If you're using some specific criteria to define "scholarly" - eg completely without bias, or peer-reviewed by academics, or whatever - does Fraser's work on CS pass the same test?) "Experts in pain control have often pointed out that there is an important difference between morphine addicts and those people who are given occasional morphine medications for pain. This is especially true in a historical period, as in Mrs. Eddy's lifetime, when the prescription of such medications was standard practice." What the second sentence clearly means, to me anyway, is that we need to keep in mind the fact that morphine was standardly used as an occasional medication for pain in the nineteenth century without the patient necessarily becoming addicted to it. I don't see any difficulty in understanding that particular text. (In fact you could say the same thing about present-day use of - prescribed or over-the-counter - painkillers: they are routinely used for pain-control without the patient necessarily becoming addicted to them, although sometimes people do become addicted, either as a result of prescription or otherwise.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not scholarly in the sense of not published by a university press or otherwise peer-reviewed, the Christian Science church read/approved the manuscript, and it's written in a very personal style. We can use it as a source, but for anything contentious it would be good to have a supporting source.


 * As for what she means in this case, are you able to paraphrase the argument? (not just one sentence, but both together). And yes, painkiller addiction is a huge problem. That something is prescribed doesn't mean it's not addictive, so I'm not following your reasoning; that people were given morphine a lot meant they were lots of morphine addicts. Eddy's claim that when she took large doses of morphine it had no effect on her suggests she had developed a tolerance (that's assuming the claim can be believed; it sounds unlikely and we don't know what she meant by "large doses"). Finally, Gill's book is not a MEDRS-compliant source; it can't be used as a source for medical claims. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrase as requested: "According to authorities on pain control, there is a significant distinction to be made between people who are addicted to morphine on the one hand, and people who occasionally resort to the use of morphine for pain control on the other. It is particularly appropriate to draw this distinction in regard to the nineteenth century, when prescription of opiates was normal medical practice." (The clear implication, if not the exact statement, is that a person can use morphine on an occasional basis for pain control without necessarily becoming an addict, and that this distinction should be particularly borne in mind when considering the nineteenth century, when different medical mores prevailed and morphine was in more common medical usage, without its users necessarily becoming addicts.) I believe that is more-or-less what Gill was getting at. However, simply to paraphrase two sentences is to marginalise issues of context in exegesis, and if we factor in the broader textual context whereby Gill is denigrating the notion of Eddy's reliance on morphine, the meaning I am suggesting for the passage becomes even more persuasive. Also, we need to distinguish the possibility of (a) widespread prescription of morphine on the one hand to perhaps many different patients, which might result in a low level of addiction; from (b) the over-prescription of morphine to individual patients, which would no doubt give rise to a high risk of addiction in those cases. (But I'm merely discussing the semantics of your argument here, since I have no figures to cite on the extent, or intensity - which are crucially not the same thing - of morphine prescription in the nineteenth century.) Be-nice:-) (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: I should have written: "Also, we need to distinguish the possibility of (a) widespread though occasional prescription of morphine..."Be-nice:-) (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether someone becomes addicted (to anything) depends on multiple factors, environmental and genetic. Morphine was used more in the 19th century, and therefore there were more addicts, but that tells us nothing about this particular case. We can't deduce from anyone's statements whether Eddy was addicted or not. We can only report who said what.


 * Becoming dependent on a drug that's used legally (or, indeed, illegally) is nothing to be ashamed of, so there's no reason to present this as a criticism. Although it should stay somewhere in the article, I would remove it from the criticism section; in fact ideally there wouldn't be a criticism section. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should not be a criticism section in the article. However, all of the topics in the criticism section should be in the article and I don't think there's anyone who's going to undertake a reorganization of the article right now.  As for the question of morphine, it is noteworthy that Eddy used morphine, regardless of whether she was addicted to it.


 * Apparently Peel spent a great deal of effort studying Eddy's use of morphine and trying to justify why it was minimal. Peel was obviously motivated by his relationship to the church; however, he also produced a well researched biography.  Fraser notes that:


 * Peel set out to counter all aspersions cast on Eddy . . . [his biography] was essentially the work of an apologist . . . From the point of view of many Scientists, [Peel's] volume confirmed the damning anecdotes that Milmine and other biographers had told and that the Church had denounced. They confirmed that Eddy had taken morphine during illness, ..."


 * So the question regarding Eddy's use of morphine is did she take it only a few times when administered by a physician (as apparently Frye's diary records), or did she take it hundreds of times as Miranda Rice claims. The question of whether she was "addicted" is pure speculation and there is no way for us to determine the answer.


 * I think the article should contain some statement about the facts that are not in disputed, namely that Eddy used morphine a handful of times when dealing with illness. Then the article can also contain information saying that there were persistent rumors that she was addicted to morphine and it can include Frye's quote and Rice's quote.  But it should also note that there is no other evidence to corroborate these claims (unless there is other evidence, but I don't know of it). Wikiuser1239 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikiuser, there are a few points in your post that aren't in the sources below, i.e. that she took it only a handful of times when dealing with illness, that she took it only a few times when administered by a physician (Eddy herself has contradicted those claims; see point three below), and that Rice claims she took it hundreds of times. If you can cite the primary sources that support those points, could you add the citations to the list, please, along with a quote from the source if possible? That will give us an overview of the primary-source material. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have any additional sources to add to the statements listed below. My comment about what Rice saying "hundreds of times" comes from what's in the article right now.  I agree that it should be checked with sources, and perhaps what's in the article now doesn't correspond to her actual quote.  Or maybe she said that elsewhere.  As for the "handful of times" that was probably incorrect wording on my part.  What I meant was the list of times that correlate with what's in Frye's diary. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Break 2
It looks like the user who initiated analysis of this section has decided to stop participating in the discussion. So I'm not sure how many people are interested in further discussion. My opinion, as stated earlier, is that it would be best to summarize points that are not in dispute (namely that Eddy used morphine as administered by a physician to relieve pain at points in her life). Then it would also be good to include that there were rumors at various points in her life that she was addicted to morphine.

However, I am not familiar enough with all of the sources to accurately summarize this myself. If no one else wants to suggest alternate changes, or to defend the existing text, then I might propose an alternative wording that I think would be better than what is there now.

I am also amenable to the idea of basing the summary of this section primarily on primary source quotes. My concern about this is that it seems like OR, because we don't have the context about the source of the quotes. That context is something that is best studied by a scholar who would produce secondary source material. However, my suggestion for a summary of secondary sources does have the problem that there are few (or none) high quality independent sources.

If anyone wants to propose changes based on quotes from primary sources I won't object because it's likely to be better than what is currently in the article. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wikiuser! I am going to stay on after all. If you or someone else wants to propose a re-write, that's great. If it's preferred that I propose something, I'm happy to do that as well. I'll give it a few days and if no one has a go at it, I'll post something. Thank you! Bridge bendek COI 19:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Bridge, with respect, I think it's important that you not draft words for the article. When readers come here, they expect to find an article that has been written independently of the church. I know that it needs a huge amount of work, but I think getting the church involved in writing it is not the way forward. Also, just a reminder, could everyone add whatever primary-source material exists on this to the list below? That will give us an overview of who said what, which we need before drafting anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I think it should be fine for anyone to propose edits to the article in the talk pages. Particularly given how few active editors there are.  Personally I would prefer Bridge to propose something than to do so myself because I'm not as knowledgeable on the topic.  Also the existing article already largely portrays the traditional church narrative of Eddy's life, with a few critical paragraphs mixed in.  So it's already not really independent of the church..  I do agree that Bridge should not directly edit this section of the article without gaining consensus for a proposed change on the talk page first.  But I think it's fine to propose a change, and in fact that would be helpful for moving this discussion forward.


 * Also I still don't completely agree that writing the section based on selected quotes from primary sources is the right way to go because I think it is too close to original research (although if I had more primary source material I would add it to the section you created since it's useful even if we use secondary sources). However, I do think it would be better than what's currently in the article and I would not object if the section was rewritten to be based on primary source material. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you and Bridge could help by filling in whatever is known about primary sources so that we at least know that. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Note
Hi all! Thank you for all your hard work on this issue! This is just a note - as you'll see on the Christian Science talk page - because Ath and I both re-engaged on WP at the same time, I am going to take a break from the site. Thank you! Bridge bendek COI 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

discovery
"her discovery of Christian Science in 1866"

What else was "discovered" that year ? Can I "discover" a planet between Saturn and Jupiter last year if my belief is recorded in my diary ?

So who discovered "phlogiston" ?

142.162.44.93 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mary Baker Eddy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130529064512/http://christianscience.com:80/read-online/science-and-health/chapter-4-christian-science-versus-spiritualism to http://christianscience.com/read-online/science-and-health/chapter-4-christian-science-versus-spiritualism

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources
this article contains mistakes that are discrediting the founder of CS. Statements that have been put into writing using sources that are highly questionable, especially surrounding her death. This article needs re-writing by someone who does not have biases. WIKIPEDIA USED TO BE RELIABLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.210.45 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

While I also think that quality is decreasing in Wikipedia (too many deletionists), could you be more specific? What sources do you find unreliable?Dimadick (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mark Twain
There was a large section on Mark Twain, linked to primary sources. This is a biography of Eddy, I think the huge quotes from Twain are not really relevant because they were not discussing Eddy. He was talking about Christian Science in his quotes and not Eddy per se, but I guess it could be restored if anyone thinks it is relevant. I have a big foot (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Robert Peel unreliable source
Robert Peel (Christian Science) was a Christian Scientist and an Eddy promoter, he is not a reliable source. Ie. on the topic of spiritualism he tried to deny and downplay Eddy's spiritualist activities. Peel should be removed. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Reviving recently archived post
Hello, I'd like to revive and comment on the post below. This is the first-time I’ve revived an archived post, so please correct me if I’ve formatted it improperly.

Also, this being my first post on this article, I should note that, as an employee of the Church of Christ, Scientist, I am considered a COI editor on articles pertaining to Christian Science and its founder. FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert Peel unreliable source
Robert Peel (Christian Science) was a Christian Scientist and an Eddy promoter, he is not a reliable source. Ie. on the topic of spiritualism he tried to deny and downplay Eddy's spiritualist activities. Peel should be removed. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I would note that independent historians consider Robert Peel the foremost authority on Mary Baker Eddy.


 * Prior to Peel’s 1250-page biography -- the first to have full access to the extensive archives of the Church of Christ, Scientist -- there were only idealized and hostile portrayals of Eddy. These had neither the scholarly integrity nor the reliability of what Peel spent two decades laboring to produce. Because of this, Peel has been recognized for breaking down barriers between apologists and critics.


 * There’s no denying that Peel was a Christian Science insider, but it is generally accepted that an insider with scholarly integrity, and using his or her scholarly rather than personal voice, can shed valuable light on a subject.


 * To exclude Peel as a reference in this article simply because of his position within Christian Science, would be to introduce an intellectually untenable standard – and one that, fortunately, Wikipedia has not adopted.


 * I would request the editors of this article consider restoring the content from Peel. FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert Peel was a Christian Scientist and had his own bias and POV. He has been described by other historians as an "Eddy apologist". The article should not be citing biased Christian science sources. That is not how Wikipedia works. Articles should be neutral not written from a biased perspective. The IP is correct. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * According to your user page "I’m currently working for The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston", you should not even be editing this topic per conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Peel is already cited 14 times on this article. Just to point this out. I do not support adding Peel as a source anymore... the fact he has been cited more than ten times, is excessive. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Charles S. Braden Professor and Chair of the Department of History and Literature of Religions at Northwestern University, wrote in 1967: "Despite the impressive apparatus of scholarship employed, Mr. Peel's book must be taken for what it really is, an exceedingly clever piece of propaganda in support of the official view of the life of Mrs. Eddy. As such it is probably the most effective that has yet appeared."

Robert Peel cited 14 times on the article
He has been cited 14 times on the article. Trying to add more is excessive. There are other biographies of Eddy that have not been cited on the article at all. We need to keep the page neutral. Not from an pro-Eddy POV. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)