Talk:Religious Science/Archive 2

RELIGIOUS SCIENCE 3/23/08 RE-DRAFT BY WONBILLIONS
Dear Hrafn: The following re-draft incorporates most of your proposed improvements, including streamlining and/or more references. If it is OK now, please re-install the entry as indicated, with the old sections that were not edited. If more changes are needed, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks again, --Wonbillions (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
Religious Science, also known as Science of Mind, was founded in 1927 by Ernest Holmes (1887-1960) and is a spiritual/philosophical/metaphysical science within the New Thought movement. In general, the term "Science of Mind" applies to the teachings, while the term "Religious Science" applies to the organizations. However, adherents often tend to use the terms interchangeably. Ernest Holmes stated "Religious Science is a correlation of laws of science, opinions of philosophy, and revelations of religion applied to human needs and the aspirations of man." He also stated that Religious Science/Science of Mind (RS/SOM) is not based on any "authority" of established beliefs, but rather on "what it can accomplish" for the people who practice it. It differs from another popular New Thought teaching (Unity Church, a.k.a. Unity School of Christianity) because it generally does not focus on any single traditional religion.

History
Ernest Holmes did not originally intend for RS/SOM to be a religious "church," but rather a teaching institution. In that spirit, most of the member "churches" are now changing their names to "centers." The mental healing work of Dr. Phineas P. Quimby was a source of inspiration to much of the New Thought movement, including RS/SOM. Ernest Holmes was especially strongly influenced by Emma Curtis Hopkins and by the writings of Judge Thomas Troward and Ralph Waldo Emerson, as he developed his synthesis which became known as Religious Science.

Upon publication of his seminal book in 1926, The Science of Mind, Holmes established the Institute for Religious Science and School of Philosophy in Los Angeles. This organization would later become the Church of Religious Science. Holmes had studied another New Thought teaching, Divine Science (Holmes was an ordained Divine Science Minister). He saw humans as being "open at the top" - that is, open to evolutionary improvement of consciousness in all areas of life. Holmes also published a magazine called "Science of Mind," which includes inspirational articles and daily readings/affirmations; as well as a list of member UCSL (see below) centers. Another RS/SOM magazine is "Creative Thought," which includes daily "Spiritual Mind Treatments" (see Teachings and Practice below), short inspirational articles, and a listing of RSI (see below) centers.. His teachings attracted famous celebrities of his time, including Cecil B. De Mille, Peggy Lee, and Cary Grant.

Except for one notable exception (see below) the concepts of "Open at the Top" and "New Thought" have inspired the organization itself and its teachings to evolve over the years. As stated in the book "New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality," "New Thought still is evolving;  it may yet be the point at which religion, philosophy, and science come together as the most effective combination to move the world to greater peace, plenty, health, and harmony.  Many believe it might be the quintessential spirituality for the next millenium." Although, in 1953, the (then) Church of Religious Science split into two organizations, known today as the United Centers for Spiritual Living, or UCSL (formerly the United Church of Religious Science, or UCRS) and Religious Science International, or RSI, on September 11, 2007, the two organizations met in Los Angeles, CA, and voted to begin a process of integration into a single organization once again. A third branch of RS/SOM, Global Religious Science Ministries, or GRSM, was founded by former RSI ministers who envisioned an expanded definition of ministry. In addition, there are some smaller branches, as well as independent RS/SOM centers. The teachings of the branches are generally similar and the organizations collaborate on events. For a detailed history of Religious Science, see the books "Spirits in Rebellion" and "Open at the Top..."

Teaching and Practice
The RS/SOM teaching generally embraces the Idealism and Panentheism philosophies. It teaches that all beings are expressions of and part of Infinite Intelligence, also known as Spirit, HigherConsciousness, or God. It believes that, because God is all there is in the universe (not just present in Heaven, or in assigned deities, as believed by traditional teachings), Its powers can be used by all humans to the extent that they realize Its presence. Ernest Holmes said "God is not ... a person, but a Universal Presence ... already in our own soul, already operating through our own consciousness."

The Introduction to "The Science of Mind" text describes "The Thing Itself" (God or Infinite Intelligence), "The Way It Works," "What It Does," and "How to Use It." Although Holmes was criticized for not focusing much on love, he did say that "Love rules through Law." (i.e. the Law of Mind or Cause and Effect) and "Love points the way and Law makes the way possible."

RS/SOM believes that people can achieve more fulfilling lives through the practice called Spiritual Mind Treatment (Treatment), or Affirmative Prayer. Spiritual Mind Treatment is a step-by-step process, in which one states the desired outcome as if it has already happened. In that way, it differs from traditional prayer, since it does not ask God for assistance. It declares human partnership with God to achieve success. Treatment is to be stated as personal (first person), positive, powerful (with feeling), and present (is happening right now, or has already happened). The goal is to gain clarity in thinking that guides action to be consistent with the desired outcome. The Treatment sets off a new chain of causation in Mind that leads one to act according to the good for which one is treating. Spiritual Mind Treatment, as currently taught in RS/SOM centers, contains five steps: Recognition, Unification, Realization, Thanksgiving, and Release.

Classes and seminars at RS/SOM centers teach techniques for fluently conducting extemporaneous Spiritual Mind Treatments. Someone who is certified to conduct Treatments during services or to assist people through Treatment is called a licensed Practitioners (who carry the designation RScP). A professional Practitioner is available for spiritual counseling by appointment and may perform some ecclesiastical functions in association with the Minister, such as giving Treatments during services or making announcements. Everyone is also encouraged to do Spiritual Mind Treatment on their own to solve various problems in their lives. Sermons of ministers and Practitioner classes often use the phrase "Treat and move your feet." That is, Treatments are not effective unless they are applied in every day life. Personal responsibility is a major tenet of RS/SOM. Another tenet is the "Law of Attraction," as presented in the popular self-help movie "The Secret". Further, RS/SOM focuses on a state of "heaven" or "hell" in this dimension, rather than the next. Some people effectively combine Spiritual Mind Treatments with various forms of meditation and a recently developed practice called "Visioning."

While UCSL, RSI, and GRSM have standardized Science of Mind curriculum and course materials, the approach to the teachings may vary from center to center. Because Ernest Holmes studied numerous spiritual teachings before founding Science of Mind, Religious Science centers have ministers who bring relevant aspects of a variety of teachings into their services, including Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism (including the mystical Kabbalah), Islam, or Taoism. Many Religious Science centers have active Sunday Schools, Youth Groups and Young Adult programs.

Religious Science / Science of Mind can be summarized by its "Declaration of Principles." We believe in God, the Living Spirit Almighty; one indestructible, absolute and self-existent Cause. This One manifests itself in and through all creation but is not absorbed by its creation. The manifest universe is the body of God; it is the logical and necessary outcome of the infinite self-knowingness of God. We believe in the incarnation of the Spirit in everyone and that all people are incarnations of the One Spirit. We believe in the eternality, immortality, and the continuity of the individual soul, forever and ever expanding. We believe that Heaven is within us and that we experience it to the degree that we become conscious of it. We believe the ultimate goal of life to be a complete emancipation from all discord of every nature, and that this goal is sure to be attained by all. We believe in the unity of all life, and that the highest God and the innermost God is one God. We believe that God is personal to all who feel this Indwelling Presence. We believe in the direct revelation of Truth through the intuitive and spiritual nature of the individual, and that any person who lives in close contact with the indwelling God may become a revealer of Truth. We believe that the Universal Spirit, which is God, operates through a Universal Mind, which is the Law of God; and that we are surrounded by this Creative Mind, which receives the direct impress of our thought and acts upon it. We believe in the healing of the sick through the power of this Mind. We believe in the control of conditions through the power of this Mind. We believe in the eternal Goodness, the eternal Loving-kindness, and the eternal Givingness of Life to all. We believe in our own soul, our own spirit, and our own destiny; for we understand that the life of all is God."

Comments
HrafnTalkStalk 03:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) HrafnTalkStalk 03:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Having just spent considerable time beating Wonbillions' last proposal into some semblance of order, I am not interested with attempting the same on a wholesale rewrite -- particularly as it is based on Wonbillions' last proposal without including my corrections (even to the extent of continuing to mispell "Higher Consciousness", causing it to redlink).
 * I would therefore suggest limited additions/alterations to the current article'', rather than wholesale rewrites based upon an imperfect draft.
 * As it is currently formatted, it messes up the references (most probably due to a missing -tag

Reply to Hrafn
Greetings Hrafn....Although your edit is very concise, it includes most of the essential elements. However, there are some important but relatively minor changes and additions needed, as follows:

1. Please change the title of the entry to "Religious Science / Science of Mind"


 * This is not possible. Wikipedia software interprets a slash as a subdirectory/subarticle. Also I am not convinced that this clumsy double-banged nomenclature is necessary or helpful. What wording does Vahle most commonly employ to refer to this movement? HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

2. The logo which was originally in the upper right side of the page should be re-installed.


 * Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

3. History, second sentence, should read:  "... are now changing their names to "centers" - many calling themselves "Center for Spiritual Living."  "


 * Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

4. History, end of first paragraph:  Please re-install the removed sentence, as follows: " His teachings attracted famous celebrities of his time, including Cecil B. De Mille, Peggy Lee, and Cary Grant.  "


 * Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

5. History, middle of second paragraph:  The parenthetical "(see below)" is no longer applicable because of your edit, and should be removed. In its place, I suggest a concise parenthetical, as follows: " Except for one notable exception (the separation into two major groups, which are now working toward re-unification), the concepts of ... "


 * Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Teachings and Practice, first sentence:  I think this would be more understandable as follows: " The RS/SOM teaching generally incorporates idealistic and panentheistic philosophies. "

7. Teachings and Practice, end of last paragraph:  I found a good reference for visioning. Please add this sentence (with the proper link code): " Some adherents of RS/SOM also use supplemental meditation techniques, including "Visioning"  "


 * Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Teachings and Practice, end - new paragraph sentence needed:  Since you appear to be adverse to listing the "Declaration of Principles" (which is really the best way to describe the beliefs of the teaching), please at a minimum add the following sentence as a new paragraph (adding the proper code for the web link): " For greater detail about the beliefs of RS/SOM, see "What we Believe" on the website of the United Centers of Spiritual Living  "


 * Done. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

9. The last original sections are missing, as follows: Key contributors to Religious Science The following individuals have figured prominently in the growth and evolution of Religious Science: Ernest Holmes  Ralph Waldo Emerson  Phineas Parkhurst Quimby  Thomas Troward  Emma Curtis Hopkins  Louise Hay  Emanuel Swedenborg  Michael Beckwith </wiki/Michael_Beckwith>


 * Done. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See also New Thought music </wiki/New_Thought_music> International New Thought Alliance </wiki/International_New_Thought_Alliance> Association for Global New Thought </w/index.php?title=Association_for_Global_New_Thought&action=edit&redlink=1>


 * Two redirects & one non-article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

External links United Centers for Spiritual Living (UCSL) <http://www.religiousscience.org/> Religious Science International (RSI) <http://www.rsintl.org/> Global Religious Science Ministries (GRSM) <http://www.grsm.org/> RSI Youth Program <http://www.rsyouth.org> UCSL Youth Program <http://www.religiousscience.org/youth/> Retrieved from "<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Science>"


 * This seems an overly-long & duplicative list. Will include the first link. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your objective and diligent efforts. --Wonbillions (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO HRAFN..TWEAKING
See my answers below yours. --Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Hrafn....Thanks for incorporating most of my recommendations. I have some questions and further suggestions on the rest of them.

1. OK...SOM link to RS works now...it didn't before.--Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Please see the home page of UCRS at http://www.religiousscience.org/xindex02.html. Although the name of the website has not yet been updated from UCRS to United Centers for Spiritual Living, they state "Welcome to.....  Please update the logo name accordingly.--Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the official title that the source (the USVA) gives to this emblem, so is the most appropriate caption. If you don't like this, then I suggest you take it up with them. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

3. OK...I see your point. Then please just name them within the suggested sentence. The section would not be complete without them. It would then read: " Except for one notable exception (the separation into several major groups (United Centers for Spiritual Living, Religious Science International, and Global Religious Science Ministries, which are now working toward re-unification), the concepts of ... " --Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First provide me with a WP:RS mentioning these groups as significant constituents of the Religious Science movement. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

4. OK...thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

5. OK....thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, --Wonbillions </w/index.php?title=User:Wonbillions&action=edit&redlink=1> (talk </wiki/User_talk:Wonbillions>) 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_Science>"

Two Remaining Issues
Hi Hrafn...Please see my responses below yours:


 * Wonbillions: please STOP creating new sections for this! Read WP:TALKPAGE to learn proper talkpage etiquette. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Please see the home page of UCRS at <http://www.religiousscience.org/xindex02.html>. Although the name of the website has not yet been updated from UCRS to United Centers for Spiritual Living, they state "Welcome to..... Please update the logo name accordingly.--Wonbillions </w/index.php?title=User:Wonbillions&action=edit&redlink=1> (talk </wiki/User_talk:Wonbillions>) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the official title that the source (the USVA) gives to this emblem, so is the most appropriate caption. If you don't like this, then I suggest you take it up with them. Hrafn </wiki/User:Hrafn>Talk </wiki/User_talk:Hrafn>Stalk </wiki/Special:Contributions/Hrafn> 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC) The USVA appears to have simply collected all symbols. Why are they the source of every spiritual belief? Why do I need to contact a reference when the REAL source (UCSL) is saying they have changed their name from UCRS? Isn't that overkill? There may be other references...do I need to contact them all? Please update the name.--Wonbillions (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The USVA is the source for this image, so if we use this image we should follow their nomenclature for it, lacking compelling reasons or evidence to the contrary. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2. OK...I see your point. Then please just name them within the suggested sentence. The section would not be complete without them. It would then read: " Except for one notable exception (the separation into several major groups (United Centers for Spiritual Living, Religious Science International, and Global Religious Science Ministries, which are now working toward re-unification), the concepts of ... " --Wonbillions </w/index.php?title=User:Wonbillions&action=edit&redlink=1> (talk </wiki/User_talk:Wonbillions>) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First provide me with a WP:RS </wiki/Wikipedia:RS> mentioning these groups as significant constituents of the Religious Science movement. Hrafn </wiki/User:Hrafn>Talk </wiki/User_talk:Hrafn>Stalk </wiki/Special:Contributions/Hrafn> 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the January, 2008 version of the page (which included all three organizations) appears to have been written by an RS/SOM minister, who is familiar with the subject. Second, our Center used to belong to RSI and now belongs to United. And, thirdly, the splinter groups' websites are saying they are "Science of Mind," which is a registered trademark. See their sites at http://www.rsintl.org/ and  http://www.grsm.org/about.htm. So please include them for completeness, as suggested above.--Wonbillions (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * None of this counts as WP:RS. If they are important constituent parts of a notable movement then why have no reliable sources written about their relationship to this movement? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, --Wonbillions (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage errors
Wonbillions, your most recent edits screwed up the formatting of the section to the point that it was illegible (apparently by removing colon-indentations & replacing square-brackets with weird tags), and I had to revert. Evidence of them can also be seen in your copy & pastes above with normal formatting (from previous sections) being replaced with weird code like "</wiki/Wikipedia:RS>". In any case my responses to what you appeared to be attempting to say can be boiled down to "I won't make any further changes until you can provide me with WP:RSs explicitly supporting the changes." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Response
Several points, Hrafn: 1. I didn't do the formatting...I was relying on your expertise to do that - as you have in the past. The weird codes are due to the copy and pasting I did from my word processor. As I said on your talk page, I had to do it that way because I lost my text one time when time ran out on my log-in.


 * Well your edits changed the formatting radically, so I can only presume it was you. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

2. If you want to make the graphic description inconsistent with the present name for the organization, I give up with your lack of reason. It would be best to delete the description rather than make it wrong. I gave very adequate references to the fact that the name has been changed. It doesn't need to be "third party" in this case...It's even better...coming from the "horse's mouth"....their website. What about that don't you understand?


 * If their website is anything to go by, they're using both names (and the original rather more frequently). In any case, we have USVA to say that it is the UCRS symbol & now UCRS to say that it is a general RS symbol. Which is good enough for the time being, unless and until some other faction comes along to deny this generality. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

3. However, I can't tolerate your refusal to include the name of the organization that comprises about half of the Centers. It was there in the original draft and should be there again. Again, I gave adequate references that don't need to be third party, since it comes from the "horse's mouth"...the website of the organization, as well as the separate magazine they publish.


 * None of the organisations are named in the article, because you have provided no WP:RSs discussing them. UCRS/UCSL is listed in the external links (EL) section because it is the owner of the "religiousscience.org" domain name, which at least earns them the presumption of relevance. If Religious Sscience is notable and if this "organization ... comprises about half of the Centers" then why can't you provide reliable sources discussing their relationship to the wider movement? The order of action (in quick succession) should be to (1) find such a WP:RS (2) mention their significance in the article body & (3) provide an EL to them once we've established that they're a significant part of the RS movement. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

4. I would hate to do this, but if you can't see my point of view, I'll have to go over your head at Wikipedia.

--Wonbillions (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then call a WP:RFC on the subject. But please be careful with the formatting. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An Independent Reference
OK Hrafn....I found an independent reference for this uncontroversial historical event. So the suggested new paragraph at the end of the History section would read:

The one exception to the evolution of the organization is the creation of a new organization with exactly the same philosophy. In 1953, Religious Science International (RSI) was created from the original United Church of Religious Science (which is now known as the United Centers for Spiritual Living - UCSL). Today both organizations have a significant number of member centers/churches. Since then, smaller RS/SOM organizations have formed as well. On September 11, 2007, UCSL and RSI began the process of re-uniting.

One more nit... I forgot to put in the date of the Braden book (Spirits in Rebellion)...It's 1984. Please do it.

Thanks for making the graphic description neutral.

By the way, I didn't do anything on the RS page directly. After my first failed attempt at editing, I've been putting all my suggestions into this page and asking you to modify it and insert it with the correct codes. So it must have been another newbie.

Also, when we're done with this edit, I plan to solicit comments from other Religious Scientists, friends, and family on any further improvements they might suggest. I'll again run anything significant past you.

Thanks,--Wonbillions (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is hard to take seriously as a WP:RS a website that prominently features a map from J. R. R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion (not that I'm dissing Tolkien mind, but it is highly off-topic & fanciful in the context). Also, it is explicitly written from the viewpoint of an RS insider, so is hardly "indepedent" of the movement.
 * 2) Also your wording "was created from" is singularly uninformative of how/why this split occured.
 * 3) The directory listings cannot be used to establish "significant number of member centers/churches" without significant impermissible synthesis of these sources (see also WP:PSTS). They are also most certainly not "independent".
 * 4) You provide no source on "smaller RS/SOM organizations".

[Per 1] I beg to differ, Hrafn. Please look at the site more carefully. From the "About" page, I gleaned this description of the site: "The Piscean-Aquarian Ministry is a personal ministry devoted to introducing others to New Thought." So Religious Science is only ONE of the New Thought teachings the site talks about. It's perfect as an impartial reference, since it is not biased toward any one of the New Thought teachings.--Wonbillions (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A "personal ministry" brings it under WP:V. It is not a WP:RS (as the fact that it accepts uncited wikipedia material should clearly indicate). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, it cites wikipedia as its source for re-uniting process, and wikipedia (or any wiki) is not a WP:RS for a wikipedia article (which should make sense, as otherwise we'd allow circular referencing, and thus any claim no matter how hair-brained).

I see your point, Hrafn. The 9/11/07 beginning of the re-uniting of the two factions was in the Wikipedia section that you deleted for lack of reference. The only thing I can say is that this is too recent an event to go into the history books yet. The minister at our center mentioned it in one of her sermons. I therefore included that sermon as a reference (see below). It that's not good enough, please just let it go and let later editors correct any discrepancies.--Wonbillions (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What you minister said is not verifiable, so not an acceptable source. Plus we have no way of knowing where she got her information from, so no way of knowing how reliable it is. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[Per 3] Wouldn't it suffice to cite the websites of some of the smaller organizatiions, just to show (non-controvercially) that they exist? I didn't do that below, but let me know if that would work.--Wonbillions (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really, again it would be considered synthesis of the material, as well as being very messy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Really, you're going to have to do better than this. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Hrafn.... I can see where there might be some confusion. Here's another try at some language for a new paragraphe at the end of the History section:

The one exception to the evolution of the organization is the split from it of a faction which had exactly the same philosophy, but differed in its administration. In 1953, that faction separated from the United Church of Religious Science (which is now known as the United Centers for Spiritual Living - UCSL) and called itself Religious Science International (RSI). On September 11, 2007, UCSL and RSI began the process of re-uniting.

Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See above comments. The problem that we face is that the Religious Science movement is very poorly documented in reliable sources. This means that there is comparatively little verifiable information to give on the subject. As WP:V is a fundamental policy for wikipedia, there isn't anything we can do about the fact. The article needs to be based on solid historical scholarship (such as Vahle's book) and quality news reports. (Oh, and I've taken the liberty of restoring my numbered-list of points to its proper formatting & referencing your replies to it by point-number.) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New Contributor - Suntree
The Journal of the Society for the Study of Metaphysical Religion featured a scholarly article that covers the history of RS/SOM a few years ago. I'll dig it out and add some scholarly references. I may be one of the only people to have belonged to churches affiliated with UCRS, RSI, and GRSM and also am a lifetime member of SSMR, so I also have an extensive library I'll draw on for further scholarly support. Suntree (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)68.48.145.5 (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Suntree....Yes, please help any way you can. As you can see from the dialogue between us, Hrafn is quite a stickler for details, so any references that you have that back up the history of what transpired would be very much appreciated. Right now we especially need a good reference for the 9/11/07 meeting betwwen RSI and UCSL where they started the re-uniting process. I'm not sure if my minister-in-training's sermon will satisfy Hrafn. Thanks mucho, --Wonbillions (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

=Hrafn to Wonbillions= <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This is not an "unstuffed" edition, your word-processor has again striped out and/or mangled almost all formatting -- it contains NO colons or double-square-brackets, making it virtually impossible to follow a thread of conversation through. DON'T USE YOUR WORD PROCESSOR until you work out how to do so without striping out wikipedia markup code (a strong hint as to whether you have done so is whether it leaves all the :, *, #,, , , , etc in tact -- and if you can't even see them, then this probably means that you haven't left them in tact). I am going to simply revert any further 'stuffed up' versions. Read [[WP:TALKPAGE again, it explains correct formating of a talkpage thread.
 * 2) You also appear to have copied off an old version that does not include, and you thus don't address, my comments in above, so I see no point in commenting further at this point until you have addressed these comments.

=Response from Wonbillions= Hi again Hrafn

Based on your last response, I see now that I was copying and pasting from the actual website page rather than the edit page. This left out the codes. Sorry about that. I put word wrap back on. Let me know if it's OK now. But, again, it looked OK to me before. As editor, are you seeing a different page than what everybody else sees?

Please look at the "Lessons in Truth" website more carefully. From the "About" page, I gleaned this description of the site: "The Piscean-Aquarian Ministry is a personal ministry devoted to introducing others to New Thought." So Religious Science is only ONE of the New Thought teachings the site talks about. It's perfect as an impartial reference, since it is not biased toward any one of the New Thought teachings The 9/11/07 beginning of the re-uniting of the two factions is too recent an event to go into the history books yet. The minister at our center mentioned it in one of her sermons. I therefore included that sermon as a reference (see below). If that's not good enough, please just let it go and let later editors correct any discrepancies. For example, it looks as if a new reviewer (see above) has some further references. Another possibility is to scrounge up the minutes of the 9/11/07 meeting. Should I do that?

I give up on trying to convince you that we should include a mention of the smaller factions. It is more important to focus on the two main factions. Once they unite, the smaller ones may wish to join as well, to strengthen the organization.

So, based on the above explanation, here's another try at some language for a new paragraph at the end of the History section:

" The one exception to the evolution of the organization is the split from it of a faction which had exactly the same philosophy, but differed in its administration.  In 1953, that faction separated from the United Church of Religious Science (which is now known as the United Centers for Spiritual Living - UCSL) and called itself Religious Science International (RSI) .  On September 11, 2007, UCSL and RSI began the process of re-uniting.   "

Thanks again, Wonbillions--Wonbillions (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You still don't appear to have read my replies above, so I will repeat them: <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A "personal ministry" brings it under WP:V. It is not a WP:RS (as the fact that it accepts uncited wikipedia material should clearly indicate). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) What you[r] minister said is not verifiable [unless her sermons are published somewhere], so not an acceptable source. Plus we have no way of knowing where she got her information from, so no way of knowing how reliable it is. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up Response to Hrafn
Dear Hrafn...I agree that the second reference is weak and have now found an impeccable reference that should do the job. See below. However, you have not made a convincing argument that the the "Lessons in Truth" website is somehow related to Religious Science. It is as far removed as are the Catholics from the Protestants. They are both Christian, but are like apples and oranges. In the same way, the "Lessons in Truth" website is New Thought, but in no way connected to Science of Mind/Religious Science. Making a reference to a Wikipedia quote shouldn't disqualify them either, since the goal of Wikipedia IS to be verifiable. Their Wikipedia reference is for the proposed RE-joining of RSI and United...not for the original split. The new reference I am providing handles the RE-joining proposal, and so should cancel out their mistake. So I suggest the new paragraph at the end of the History section read:

" The one exception to the evolution of the organization is the split from it of a faction which had exactly the same philosophy, but differed in its administration.  In 1953, that faction separated from the United Church of Religious Science (which is now known as the United Centers for Spiritual Living - UCSL) and called itself Religious Science International (RSI) .  On September 11, 2007, UCSL and RSI began the process of re-uniting.   "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonbillions (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonbillions: could you please stop using -tags on talk -- I'm tired of having to move the template around so that I can read the references created with them. I will comment after this edit, when I am actually in a position to see what the new references are. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:V & WP:RS. Read them carefully. Now read them again. You are making basic mistakes regarding this policy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) As I stated above, "A "personal ministry" brings it under WP:V. It is not a WP:RS (as the fact that it accepts uncited wikipedia material should clearly indicate)." Whether it is "somehow related to Religious Science" irrelevant to this point.
 * 2) The "Report of Meeting..." is unpublished and therefore unverifiable.

Follow-up +New Stuff
--Wonbillions (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hrafn....Several things:

1. In the middle of the second paragraph, I found an additional reference. Please modify the sentence as follows (addition underlined for emphasis): " ... Minister).  He saw humans as well as the teaching as being "open at the top" - that is, open to evolutionary improvement of consciousness in all areas of life. [5] ["The Roads to Truth:  In Search of New Thought's Roots" Sherry Evans, 2005, p. 34, ISBN number 0-9763630-0-3]  The concepts of ...  "

2. At your urging, I have eliminated the recent initiation of the re-uniting of the two factions until there is a published text or periodical that references that. I did find a published text that cites the original break-up, as reflected in the following revised new paragraph (to be placed at the end of the History section).

" The one exception to the evolution of the organization is the split from it of a faction which had exactly the same philosophy, but differed in its administration.  In 1953, that faction separated from the United Church of Religious Science (which is now known as the United Centers for Spiritual Living - UCSL) and called itself Religious Science International (RSI) .  ["Foundations of the Science of Mind" copyright 2007, United Centers for Spiritual Living, p. 19]  "

3. At the bottom of the page, under "Categories" please remove Religious Science from the category "Christian Denomination," since it is not, as you can see from its description. The category "New Thought Movement" is sufficient.

4. Please add a new paragraph at the end of the "Teachings and Practices" section, as follows:

TEN CORE CONCEPTS OF THE SCIENCE OF MIND 1. There is One Cosmic Reality Principle and Presence in the Universe - God. All creation originates in this One Source. God is. God is all there is. ["The Science of Mind" pp. 63-80]

2. God is threefold (triune) in nature, having three aspects or modes of being within the One: Spirit, Soul and Body. This is God seen as the Universal Macrocosm. ["The Science of Mind" pp. 81-105]

3. Spirit is the great Causative Power of the Universe. The Word, or thought, of God eternally initiates the Divine Creative Process. In this process, Law is continuously set in motion to create, from the Unformed Substance, innumerable forms which follow the thought-patterns of Spirit. ["The Science of Mind" pp. 137-148]

4. In the Infinite Nature of God, all conceivable Good is eternally available, ready to flow into human experience. Through some cosmic Process, this flow of Good is activated and/or increased by human belief, faith, and acceptance. The expression of this essential belief, faith, and acceptance is prayer. ["The Science of Mind" pp. 149-162]

5. This is a Universe of Wholeness, Allness, Oneness. Spirit is a transcendent, perfect Wholeness that, in Its infinite inclusivity, harmoniously embraces all seeming opposites. ["The Science of Mind" pp. 108.2-111.3]

6. This is a Universe of infinite abundance, spiritual, mental, and physical. This Bounty of Spirit, this Allness of Good, is limitless and can never be depleted. ["The Science of Mind" pp. 266-278] 7. This is a reciprocal Universe. For every visible form, there is an invisible counterpart. Everything in nature tends to equalize itself, to keep its balance true. ["The Science of Mind" pp. 279-293]

8. The Universe exists in the Eternal Now, each moment complete and perfect within itself. In this Universal Harmony, justice without judgment is always automatic, an infallible Universal Principle. There can be no place for Divine anger, unforgiveness, or punishment. ["The Science of Mind" pp. 457-458]

9. Immortality is a Universal Principle, not a "belief' or a bargain made with the Universe for good behavior. God knows only Life, its eternal continuity, evolution, and expansion. ["The Science of Mind" pp. 371-389]

10. The mystic concept of the Cosmic Christ is not that of a person, but of a Principle, a Universal Presence ... the Universal Image of God present in all creation ... the "pattern that connects." ["The Science of Mind" pp. 357-370]

Thanks again for your help, Wonbillions--Wonbillions (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn...I saw your complaint about the references on my talk page. However, I don't understand it, since I can see the references as plain as day just above here in the edit window. I've been doing it this way from day one. I don't know how to do it any other way. I did, however, make it easier to read, by separating each Core Concept. Thanks,--Wonbillions (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I left you two examples on your talkpage: & . Try to follow the first one (or even see what it is) without editing the page to do so. This is the problem. This is why it is general etiquette to use which yields (which is unreadable without a reflist-template below it) is what you have been doing.
 * which yields (which is directly readable/followable) is what you need to do.

OK Hrafn - done above. Please now do the changes. Thanks.--Wonbillions (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No you didn't. You stuck a whole heap of  -tags in there. I only stuck them in my own code so that the reference-codes would show up, rather than being interpreted by software, as you requested "step by step instructions" (didn't the fact that I used them in both the "what you have been doing" & "what you need to do" indicate to you that they were unrelated to the change?). I have now gone though and removed them all. I will next (finally) look at what you have actually cited. For the future, please use the "Show preview" to make sure that the citations show up & are click-followable (I can't check them out if I can't follow them). Following my own advice, I notice that virtually everything was just cited to SoM (necessitating more playing about to make them visible. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Hrafn...I again looked at the final page rather than the edit page. As I understand it, you said that references have to be surrounded with . In the edit window, you won't see the "nowiki" and "/nowiki" on both sides, but I assume you want that also, with brackets around it. Is that correct? --Wonbillions (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the article itself you are correct, ref-tags should be used (as it collects them altogether in a reflist at the bottom). In talk, the 'bottom' keeps shifting, so it is not possible to have a permanent reflist. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So please confirm....In the talk page, you want "nowiki" and "/nowiki" (in brackets) in addition to "ref" and "/ref" ?? Or, would it be easier if I just make changes in the article itself, for you to review?  If you like, I can alert you to that on your talk page.--Wonbillions (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Per 1: I can see no change other than a different reference -- which appears considerably less scholarly (and thus less reliable) than the original (it is to a small New-Thought only press with only four authors). I therefore see no value in adding it.


 * What makes you think it is less scholarly? It is available in book stores and has an ISBN number.  It is a second reference, but if you think it's redundant, forget it.--Wonbillions (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The original is in a serious historical treatment of the movement by a qualified historian, the proposed comes with a 'Chapter Study Guide' (& 'Answer Key'), and is clearly aimed at being an 'authorised history' for tuition within the movement. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, but it doesn't matter, since we already have a good reference for the subject.--Wonbillions (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Per 2: the document that you cite appears to be an internal UCRS/UCSL document. Does it have an ISBN? Is it available though any mainstream bookstore (Amazon, etc) or library? If not, then it is highly problematical from the point of verification (as well as being of potentially partisan, if RSI have a different account of the separation). It would be far better to use a reliable third party source for this sort of thing.


 * This is a course curriculum that is available from UCSL It is like quoting a course text book, which includes the history of the organization.  Why would they lie about the organization breaking up?  If anything, that would be a negative.  Would you feel better if we include the address and website, or phone number of UCSL in the reference, to allow people to order it?  If you don't have it, I can provide it.--Wonbillions (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) The RSI might see the reasons for the split differently, so if we are relying on one side's 'official history' as a source we should stick to facts, not interpretation. It is probably a good enough source for "In 1953, the Religious Science International (RSI) separated from the United Church of Religious Science (which is now known as the United Centers for Spiritual Living - UCSL). The applicable policy on this is WP:SPS & WP:SELFPUB. It is possible that other editors might dispute it as unreliable/a commercial link, but for simple 'names & dates' it should be sufficient. (2) For purposes of identifying the source, it would be best if we can include a URL, given that it doesn't have an ISBN number (or other unique identifier). I searched for the name on Google, but could only find courses, not the book itself. If you can provide the official UCSL site for it, that would be helpful. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK...Here is the URL http://www.enhancing.com/foundational/foundations.html  --Wonbillions (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please... I believe it will serve everyone involved if we break away from language like, "Why would they lie... If anything, that would be a negative." We are looking for objective reality.  Objective reality does not relate to "pros and cons."  Although we have personal motivations (everyone does) putting them aside is possible.  --Quizoid (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Quizoid: please don't put words into my mouth. I was not talking about "lying", I was talking about 'seeing things differently'. If the two sides held exactly the same viewpoint, then they quite simply wouldn't have split. If they saw things sufficiently differently to split, it is not unreasonable to suspect that they might hold different viewpoints as to what was the most important reasons for the split were. Think of a couple going through a messy divorce. Even without any lying, they are quite likely to give very different versions of the marriage-breakdown, for the simple reason that they see things very differently and thus emphasise and de-emphasise different parts, according to what is important to them. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn, I was quoting Wonbillions. --Quizoid (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Per 3: will do.

Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per 4: I've added this (with a single combined citation), but have also tagged it for excessive jargon. While insiders may find it satisfactory, they already know what SoM is about. Any outsider reading this section would be horribly confused. As it's cited, I'll leave it in for the mean time. But it really needs to be rewritten into a plain-English version. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain what you think is jargon. Every word is in the dictionary....it's not rocket science....it's Religious Science.


 * "One Cosmic Reality Principle", "Universal Macrocosm", "In this process, Law is continuously set in motion to create, from the Unformed Substance, innumerable forms which follow the thought-patterns of Spirit.", "In the Infinite Nature of God, all conceivable Good is eternally available, ready to flow into human experience. Through some cosmic Process, this flow of Good is activated and/or increased by human belief, faith, and acceptance.", "This is a Universe of Wholeness, Allness, Oneness.", "This Bounty of Spirit, this Allness of Good, is limitless and can never be depleted.", "For every visible form, there is an invisible counterpart.", "The Universe exists in the Eternal Now, each moment complete and perfect within itself.", "Immortality is a Universal Principle", "The mystic concept of the Cosmic Christ is not that of a person, but of a Principle, a Universal Presence ... the Universal Image of God present in all creation ... the "pattern that connects."" -- yes I know that this is pretty much the whole of it. And no it is not "in the dictionary" -- it is chock full of capitalised word-pairs that clearly are intended to have some meaning beyond the sum of their components' dictionary definitions (which combination would in any case likely be an incomprehensible mismatch). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, many of the individual (especially capitalised) words clearly are being imbued with idiosyncratic meanings -- e.g. the "Law" in "Law is continuously set in motion to create". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Great point, Hrafn. Even though the words are in the dictionary, the word pairs are talking about specific things, and the word "Law," has a very specialized meaning.  We should talk about how to best go about rewriting it.  I am studying to be a Religious Science Practitioner, so I'm comfortable summarizing the ten points into more understandable language.  Do you think it's a good idea to "source," from The Science of Mind but write it out in our own language?  We could also interlace it, where we have the point written in its original language, followed by an easier to understand version written by us.  What did you have in mind when you said we should "rewrite," it?--Quizoid (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It'd be better if this 'interpretation' came from an identifiable WP:RS (otherwise it might be regarded as WP:SYNTH). Surely somebody in RS's history must have published a 'plain English' version of these core concepts for those not already immersed in RS/SoM's terminology, e.g. for tuition or PR purposes? But even your own version would be preferable to the current, I think (I see no benefit to impenetrable original language over comprehensible synthesis). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Hrafn and Quizoid...I see your points, but it is similar to the "jargon" of the 5 Spiritual Mind Treatment steps above the Core Concepts. There we said "... as currently taught in RS/SOM centers ..."  How about saying the same thing here?  That would whet the appetite of any readers to explore the concepts further in classes or services.  The introduction to the Core Concepts could be changed to read:

" According to The Science of Mind (which defines the terminology), the ten core concepts of RS/SOM (as currently taught in RS/SOM centers) are:[17]   "


 * I don't think that helps. That [something incomprehensible] is "currently taught in RS/SOM centers" does not alter the fact that it is incomprehensible to, and thus of no use to, the reader. If it can't be made comprehensible, then we should look seriously at removing it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

--Wonbillions (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is not an advertisement for SoM. The purpose is not to "whet the appetite," but simply to describe.  Using jargon without explanation does not aide in that end.--Quizoid (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see my response at the bottom of the "Christian Category" section of this talk page. Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel a bit uncomfortable writing a "synth," without the original wording alongside it. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if a synth is necessary.  Looking around, I haven't found a rewriting of the ten key concepts.  Most of the capitalized words are, as a matter of fact, not referring to specific things, but are simply other words for God or Law, though some are exceptions (such as "Law" itself).  Earnest Holmes has his own conventions.  In Earnest Holmes' writing style, he would capitalize for three reasons.  In one case, he would capitalize when using a name for God.  He has over 30 words for God.  He also capitalizes for what he calls Law, also having over 30 words for that.  He uses different words for God or Law to emphasize an aspect of either one.  (ex: "This is God being seen as Universal Macrocosm.")  Thirdly, he sometimes capitalizes simply to emphasize a word.  I see examples of all three in the key concepts.  This is something I've observed in my own study, and I have no reference to back it up.  That being said, it may be better to insert footnotes, than synth rewrite it.  Footnotes like "These are all words for God," and "Law is defined as..."  --Quizoid (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Quizoid....see my proposed solution above. Thanks.--Wonbillions (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As an example, if I was reading cold a statement that "This is God being seen as Universal Macrocosm." I might take it as an expression of Pantheism -- that "that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent", as opposed to RS's avowed Panentheism. A reader who hadn't heard of Pantheism, would probably be totally confused (especially as one of the possible definitions of 'macrocosm' is 'universe'). I don't think that this serves either RS/SOM or the reader. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I get your point. I'll draft some kind of footnote dealie, and post it on the talk page.  It'll be my first writing for possible Wikipedia publication, so please feel free to tear it up with constructive criticism.--Quizoid (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Quizoid...I look forward to seeing your footnotes. However, aren't we belaboring this too much?  After all, the Core Concepts are referenced to The Science of Mind book.  People can read that to get a greater insight on the "jargon" and concepts.  Surely we don't need to reproduce the entire book!  --Wonbillions (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hello, I'm a new contributor. I'm a member of a Religious Science Church. I'm also fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia, so I's appreciate assistance and guidance.

I see that this article has been marked with a "Conflict of Interest," flag.

In looking at the article, I believe this section to read as partial:

The Introduction to "The Science of Mind" text describes "The Thing Itself" (God or Infinite Intelligence), "The Way It Works," "What It Does," and "How to Use It."[10] Although Holmes was criticized for not focusing much on love, he did say that "Love rules through Law." (i.e. the Law of Mind or Cause and Effect) and "Love points the way and Law makes the way possible." [11][12]

I believe this mostly to be true because it states a criticism, and then quickly brushes it aside. Points should stand on their own merits. (see: Conflict_of_interest) Usually, criticisms are relegated to their own section, and usually not rebuffed within that section (I don't believe it's good practice to do so). It's not at all necessary to a description of Religious Science, and I propose its removal.

What other sections do not have a neutral point of view? If none other can be found, I recommend removing the flag after this edit.

--Quizoid (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 15:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is against policy to relegate criticism to their own section -- see WP:NPOV.
 * 2) The reason why this article has been COI-flagged is that it was written mainly by an RS-follower, and I have been able to apply only limited oversight due to the fact that I have not had access to most of the sources cited (so have only been able to correct the most glaring policy missteps).
 * 3) The criticism appears to be well-cited. If you can demonstrate (from WP:RSs) either that Vahle did not mention these criticisms, or that he did so in error, then there is reason to remove them. Otherwise they should stay.

Hello Quizoid, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although I am biased (I've been a student of Religious Science for over 30 years), the one criticism of Ernest Holmes and the one mitigation of that criticism is simply a statement of fact that can be verified by reading the reference. I note that you are also biased in favor of RS, so anything you say won't remove the note at the top of the page. Only somebody not associated with RS can do that. However, if you can find further references to improve the page, please do so. I plan to solicit comments for further improvements from my Religious Science Center members and other (unbiased) friends when I'm done with these modifications.

Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Hfran and Wonbillions, for your contributions to Wikipedia; and aide on this subject.

Hfran, although relegating different POVs to their own section is warned against in the article you have cited, it can be found in these two articles on well-known subjects. (Abortion, Freud) I find the article on NPOV to contradict itself in this regard, because it cites the Abortion article as a good example of following the rules within that article (NPOV)  If those two articles "do it correctly," I'd like to be educated on the distinction. If not, perhaps they should be marked. However, I am getting a bit off topic, as this article may not require such a section.

In regards the the paragraph I suggested for removal, though the citations are likely correct (I have not checked them), the section may lack context, or be overly technical. I'm also missing how listing the first few section titles of "The Science of Mind," relates to criticisms in regards to Earnest Holmes and love (the two sentences in the paragraph do not relate to each other) or how either, perhaps overly-specific, point adds value to the article.

This section may also be overly technical. It throws out SoM jargon, without definition. ... as currently taught in RS/SOM centers, contains five steps: Recognition, Unification, Realization, Thanksgiving, and Release. [14] Although, the steps of treatment may be appropriate to include if they are also summarized.

--Quizoid (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon publication of his seminal book in 1926, The Science of Mind, Holmes...

The word "seminal," is a judgment word, and I propose its removal.

He saw humans as being... open to evolutionary improvement of consciousness in all areas of life. [5] As stated in the book "New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality," "New Thought still is evolving; it may yet be the point at which religion, philosophy, and science come together as the most effective combination to move the world to greater peace, plenty, health, and harmony. Many believe it might be the quintessential spirituality for the next millennium." [6] This quote is appropriate, as it gives depth to the point that Science of Mind is an evolving philosophy. However, the last sentence, "Many believe it might be the quintessential spirituality for the next millennium," doesn't relate to the aforementioned point. Therefore, it can be concluded that its only purpose in the article is to persuade an individual to learn more about the Science of Mind. (Not to say that was the intention of Wonbillions, who may have simply written out more of the quote than necessary.)

In the spirit of transparency, I outed myself as a member of a Religious Science Church. I do not believe that if any member of a Center for Spiritual Living writes for this article, that the article should get a "conflict of interest," tag. That term is used mostly in regards to those who stand to gain financially, are citing themselves, promoting themselves, are legal antagonists, or are writing autobiographies. However, this situation could fall under the example of a "close relationship." Although, in that situation, it explicitly states that such a person is not necessarily unqualified to write about the article (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Examples). Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. It seems to me that the onus is on the editors to point out areas that are biased, rather than say, "This is inherently biased because it is written by a person with a relationship to the article." Therefore, I believe the "CoI" tag might be unnecessary, and perhaps should be changed to a "neutrality," tag. And once those points are cleared up, the tag could be removed by a Religious Scientist, or non-Religious Scientist, as long as the article is in fact neutral.

In fact, there are many arguments for people close to a topic to write about it. An entomologist writing the article on butterflies, is clearly a good thing. A Jungian analyst writing an article on Jungian analysis is probably a good thing, but one needs to watch to make sure that it is not written in a convincing tone, but a descriptive tone. Buddhists writing the entry on Buddhism is also a good idea, but here we need to be even more careful it is not in a convincing tone. Even the scientific community is not immune, for instance, Jane Goodall has been seen as non-neutral due to her apparent personal attachment to chimpanzees (see: Jane_Goodall) (there's another separate "criticism" section that perhaps should be tagged). I don't think we should ask all editors of the "right wing politics," article if they hold right (or left) wing beliefs, and if they do, flag the article.

I disagree with the statement that a member of a Religious Science Church cannot remove the CoI tag. Additionally, I don't believe that it is appropriate to tag this article because one has been able to provide "limited oversight." It is one's onus, as an editor, to point out actual areas that aren't written in a neutral tone (as I have) and not appropriate to flag it simply because the contributions to the article were made by a member of a Religious Science Church.

--Quizoid (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Quizoid...The reason I put that in is that Hrafn told me that Wikipedia loves to do "pros and cons." So I found and used this minor con (and mitigation) to give greater reality to the subject. Also, note the stated "Open at the Top" philosophy of Ernest Holmes, in that the teaching is not "cast in stone." As you know from your RS attendance, love is often a topic in Celebrations. --Wonbillions (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken, Quizoid. However, this is intended to be an encyclopedia...not a course in Spiritual Mind Treatment. Hopefully it will whet the appetite of readers to take some courses at their local Center.--Wonbillions (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "seminal" is defined in Webster's as "Highly original and influencing the development of future events." That describes Holmes' "The Science of Mind" to a tee.--Wonbillions (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote relates to "New Thought" and is accurate and complete.--Wonbillions (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with your arguments. It's a "Catch 22" in that Wikipedia is looking for somebody that knows something about the subject, but say they have a conflict of interest if they are involved in it. That's one reason I gave a "con" to supplement to "pro" statements. But it didn't remove the COI designation. It appears to be Wikipedia policy that needs to be taken up with them.

--Wonbillions (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Wikipedia," to take it up with, exactly. There are administrators that take care of situations when editing wars and the like occur. When a consensus is reached, one of us simply removes the tag. If we do so beforehand, we risk being banned by an administrator for jumping into a editing war. Hrafn is not an editor or anything, so, I'm a bit confused by your statement of "it wasn't enough to remove the CoI tag." Again, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The tag at the top of this page isn't even on the default list of tags (or at least I couldn't find it within the "neutrality" tags). It was edited, I assume by Hrafn. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just using it as an example to point out the undo authority one may be placing on a hierarchical structure that doesn't exist. I'm very grateful for Hrafn's discerning eye.

As far as CoI goes, I don't think putting in "something bad about," a topic is what makes it neutral. It's all about tone. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not insert opinions themselves."

--Quizoid (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonbillions, please do not write messages in the middle of my messages, I find it difficult to spot where what I said ended, and what you said began. I apologize for editing your material, but I moved your comments out from the middle of mine, so my original words could be differentiated from yours. It is still clear what you are referring to in your comments.

I disagree with Hfran's statement that Wikipedia likes pros and cons (in an article like this). Although that may be true about an article about a controversial political issue, it is not appropriate for most articles. Articles should be descriptive, not argumentative. There are no "pros and cons," in the article on butterflies, Christianity, or Buddhism.

The purpose of the article should certainly NOT be to whet anybodies appetite to attend anything. Including information to whet someone's appetite to attend the service of a religious organization is a blatant conflict of interest. The sole purpose of this article is to be descriptive. Throwing out unexplained jargon does nothing to achieve that end.

The word "seminal," is a judgement word by its own definition. Whether or not something is "original," or "influential," is also a judgement. --Quizoid (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Quizoid....Why don't you think that Ernest Holmes' "The Science of Mind" was seminal in that it influenced the teaching? Without it, the teaching would not exist, since it influenced all future publications on the subject....seems seminal to me! No judgment call here.--Wonbillions (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have expressed no opinion. You have assumed an opinion.  Whether or not I think it's seminal is besides the point that "seminal," is a judgement word that gives the article the biased tone it has been flagged for.  I am attempting to clean up that bias.  --Quizoid (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's where we differ, Quizoid. The word is not subjective, according to Webster's.  It perfectly defines the Science of Mind book, since that's where it all began.--Wonbillions (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Category
This article is erroneously categorized under "Christian Denominations." Religious Science is not a Christian organization.

--Quizoid (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Quizoid....I agree. That was one of my proposed edits (see comment 3 above). As soon as I understand what Hrafn wants, I hope he'll include it in the changes I propose. Thanks--Wonbillions (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I could not see anything stating that Hrafn objected to the removal of the Christian Category. I'm not sure what the need would be, as, there's no need to prove it isn't Christian. Philosophies aren't assumed to be Christian unless proven otherwise.

Additionally, if consensus is formed over a proposed change, we don't need to wait for any specific individual to edit it. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you are uncomfortable with the editing interface, I'd be happy to make changes (we have formed consensus on) myself.

--Quizoid (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct Quizoid. The problem is that Wonbillions has admitted a WP:COI on this article, so should not edit the article directly. I have no opinion on whether RS is/is-not a 'Christian Denomination' -- as an outsider it seems to be in somewhat of a grey area. Thus I have no objection to it being removed from that category (though would object strenuously if an edit war developed over it -- as has happened occasionally on similar issues). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I do not believe admitting a CoI is grounds to request, in good faith, that someone cease making edits. Especially a CoI like, "a conservative or liberal writing an article about conservatives."  Financial and autobiographical CoIs are more touchy.  Such CoI editors are not the problem.  Bias in an article is.  Some editors with a CoI will continually write biased entries for an article.  Following such a policy (one that prohibits anyone with a CoI from editing an article) would only encourage an individual like myself, who likes to clearly state his possible bias-causing CoIs up front (in a tacit request to be closely watched) from ever admitting those possible CoIs in the first place.  However, the presence of bias in their edits is good grounds to make such a request, which I do believe Wonbillions has shown.  I will go ahead and remove the Christian category.  Thanks again, Hrafn, for helping to clean up Wikipedia, especially in the commonly unsourced New Thought articles.  --Quizoid (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:COI. It clearly defines COI more narrowly than to include "a conservative or liberal writing an article about conservatives", and clearly states that "COI edits are strongly discouraged." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Hrafn... After glancing at the article, I noticed some glaring omissions. Please correct along with the other changes needed (see above). 1. In the first paragraph of the article, we seem to have erroneously removed the sentence that should follow:   "He also stated that Religious Science/Science of Mind (RS/SOM) is not based on any "authority" of established beliefs, but rather on "what it can accomplish" for the people who practice it. [2]"  The sentence after that should read: " It therefore differs from the philosophy of another New Thought organization, Unity School of Christianity in that it does not embrace any single traditional religion.  "


 * Do you have a reliable source for this? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn...The source is shown as [2] above. Christianity is an established belief, and Unity espouses it in its name (Unity School of Christianity).--Wonbillions (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then (per WP:SELFPUB it can only be used as a source on UCLS's own beliefs, not Unity School of Christianity's. It should therefore read "RS/SOM does not embrace any single traditional religion." (Also, please indent your comments with colons, to make it easier to follow the thread.) <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn...Please note that, when readers go to the cross reference to Unity, the first sentence reads (from the edit page): Unity also known officially as Unity School of Christianity and informally as Unity Church, is a school of thought founded upon holistic Christian principles within the New Thought movement.

The name of the organization should also give people a clue that it's Christian. The idea is to compare philosophies between the two largest New Thought organizations. I think that would be valuable information.--Wonbillions (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly. But Unity isn't the subject of this article, so there's really no compelling reason to mention them at all, and a strong reason not to attempt to make a contrast between the two without a neutral source that isn't affiliated with either of the contrastees. The see-also at the bottom should be sufficient. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, Hrafn. As you suggested, I put that information onto the New Thought article.  I also added references, etc. to help fix that page.  I also added the link references to the new "Organization" section added by another editor on this RS article.


 * I made no such suggestion. And my comment "...and a strong reason not to attempt to make a contrast between the two without a neutral source that isn't affiliated with either of the contrastees" likewise applies there. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Religious Science article now has all the essential information, so I intend to solicit comments (or direct edits) from my spiritual (and other) friends. I'll give them about a 2 month deadline for comments. Stay tuned for further proposals. Maybe we can eliminate some of the red flags. Thanks again for all your (and Quizoid's) help in this. I'll keep watching this page for improvements to things like explaining the Core Principles. --Wonbillions (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2. The second paragraph of the History section, after "The Science of Mind" needs to have the citation number to the reference Holmes, Ernest </wiki/Ernest_Holmes> (1926). The Science of Mind. ISBN 0874778654 </wiki/Special:BookSources/0874778654>. which is listed below. NEVER MIND....I FIXED IT--Wonbillions (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,--Wonbillions (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewed discussion on Christian Category
Actually some people in RS do consider themselves Christians - not in the traditional sense: A "Christian" by definition is one who: 1. Believes in Jesus Christ 2. Follows his teachings. In the traditional sense, we do not consider ourselves Christians because we do not claim Jesus as our lord and savior. However we do believe in his teaching. The Science of Mind textbook is base largely on his teachings. as quoted from "How to Speak Religious Science" by Dennis Merritt Jones,D.D. So according to the second definition some in the Religious Science consider ourselves Christians. I think there is room at the table for both.66.108.106.248 (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Most Christians take something like the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed as the core definition of 'Christian', so this definition would appear to be idiosyncratic from the Christian perspective at least. Secondly, even if we can verify your statement that "some people in RS do consider themselves Christians" (which requires a WP:RS) -- this is still appears to be a minority viewpoint within RS. This might be the basis for a mention in the article, depending on how significant the minority is verified to be, but is not the basis for a category assignment (which should be on the basis of the majority RS viewpoint). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 05:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many Religious Scientist regard themselves as Christians it is left up to the individual to choose. The SOM text is base on Jesus' teachings.JGG59 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:RS for the first assertion? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

An argument could be made that Science of the Mind "Christians" do not understand Jesus' teachings. For example, Biblical scholarship (John S. Spong and others) have shown that the Gospels were written in Midrash. They are mostly interpretive. The "Nag Hamadi Library" was not discovered until near the middle of the last century and "The Gospel of Thomas" and "The Gospel of Mary" (of Magdala) reveal that at least one early Christian tradition was more intuitive and emotional (spiritual) and individuality and participation upon an equal basis by women was honored. The "Peter" tradition of course won out when Constantine mandated the "Catholic" tradition. Two facts to support this argument are: 1) [true] Christianity is the only religion in which God died for humans.  God's do not die but if they do they come back, but not in the sense of the resurrection of Jesus.  That resurrection, Spong argues, was in the hearts of the disciples in Galilee, six months after "Easter," during the "Feast of the Tabernacles."  It was prompted by Mary who told the disciple to quit moping around and get busy promoting love and loving (active caring).  Jesus was elevated to the god-head only after this realization, not at Easter.  There is no Jewish motif of the Good Shepherd that lays down his life for his sheep (John 10), nor in Islam or any other religion. 2) The fact that the disciples elevated Jesus to the god head then was extraordinary in that they (and Jesus) were all Jews. The central idea of Judaism is that The Lord is God and God is One. For a Jew to consider that a man now was also part of god (showed the true nature of god) was physically like accepting that lead can be transmuted into gold. See, "Resurrection: Myth or Reality?" by John S. Spong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shumanitutonka (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Meta-Discussion
Wonbillions, thank you for all the research you have done. You've done a large amount of sourcing.

Hfran, thank you for improving the quality of this article.

It is clear we all wish to create an article of high quality on Religious Science.

A few points to clarify or repeat:

1) The point of this article is to describe, not glorify or diminish.

2) Religious Science is not an issue, it is a spiritual movement. Pros and cons aren't necessary to describe it.  They would only serve to glorify or diminish.

3) Religious Science is a fairly new thing, there is not a lot of source material. There are few if any experts of Religious Science that are not Religious Scientists.  Christianity is large enough to have experts who are Christian, opposed to Christianity, and neutral about Christianity.  Ideally, the article on Christianity would be written by those neutral folk (which, honestly, I doubt has happened 100%, or even 50%, anyway).  Religious Science is not even well-known enough to have such scholars.  This is why it's important to look at the content itself, and not its contributors.  For the sake of the improvement and completeness of Wikipedia, an article should exist anyway, despite these issues.  It's also important to remember this rule: WP:Ignore All Rules. --Quizoid (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

<span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The point of an article is to describe from a neutral point of view, based upon reliable sources, and where possible third party sources (hence template:primarysources which states "Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article.").
 * 2) I have only once made reference to "issues" -- on the subject of a tendency I have seen for people to edit-war on "issues" similar to whether RS/SOM is a 'Christian denomination' or not (which an anon-editor did, almost immediately).
 * 3) RS is not a "new thing" compared with Wicca (and other forms of Neopaganism), or many of the other members of Category:New religious movements -- most of which are more recent than RS. There is therefore not a compelling reason to make an exception for it. But in any case there is a strong presumption in wikipedia that if something is noteworthy it will be mentioned in a reliable source (e.g. see WP:DUE). As far as WP:Ignore All Rules goes -- unless you can build a strong consensus for ignoring the rules, it simply breaks down into an edit-war and/or being escalated to a WP:RFC or similar. WP:Ignore All Rules doesn't mean "I can have whatever I want" it only means "I can have whatever I can get others to agree to" -- because otherwise they'll simply 'ignore all rules' right back at you for what they want.


 * I have to say that this is one of those cases where a third party point of view may not yet be widely available. Wiccanism, though newer, certainly has more adherents, and dissenters, than Religious Science, that tends to not boil blood or grow quickly (it does not convert, neither does Wiccanism but I believe it blew up because there was really few non-tribal earth-based religion around when it came up).  Note is says, "where possible third party..."  Again, RS is big enough to warrant a good entry on Wikipedia, but has not advertised enough (doing so may be somewhat against what it teaches) or annoyed enough people, to really be studied.  --Quizoid (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am totally impressed with Wikipedia. Years ago, I thought it was a "free-for-all" where anybody can say anything...unreliably. When I see editors such as Hrafn keeping on top of references, that makes it a REAL encyclopedia of the people, where people can go reliably for facts. Coming from a science background, I can appreciate that. On the other hand, I agree that the rules of Wikipedia may be overly stringent at times. --Wonbillions (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Many parts of wikipedia are a free-for-all (I just read on WP:BLP/N just how many thousands of biographies of living people are unreferenced). My opinion generally is 'don't trust the article for anything that you actually care about -- trust the references'. If the references are solid, it should support the article's contents. It also has the advantage of allowing you the option, by reading the referenced works (either online or from a local library if its a paper book), of getting a far more detailed account than any encyclopaedia article could ever yield. Wikipedia is the start, not the end. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and also think of WP as a start, and not an end.--Quizoid (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, with more editors like Hrafn, those biographies and any other questionable articles can get fixed. The rules are sometimes overly stringent, but better that than "loosey goosey."--Wonbillions (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

= Organizations section, etc. =

I have added the Organizations section in skeleton form. I will be back soon to flesh out this skeleton with details of the history and purpose of these organizations. This section will be similar to sections with the same name on many religion pages. In the meantime, as this is not my article to own, I welcome any editors contributions of additional organizations and details. This framework is placed here for everyone to build on according to the precepts of WP:INSPECTOR and WP:POTENTIAL. -- Low Sea (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see one of the New Thought organization was added to this section. There are many of these "umbrella groups". While most RSc churches would certainly be part of those organizations I think listing them should be limited to the New Thought page to avoid duplication. It is my belief that organizations listed in this section should be limited to those who have meaningful (exclusive seems too harsh a word) relationships with Religious Science. Instead of simply deleting the entry I leave it to consensus to decide if this is the right approach. -- Low Sea (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Affiliated New Thought Network is a SOM based teaching.SOM is its core text.66.108.145.152 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, well that would be a meaningful relationship with RSc/SoM then (learned something new today!). INTA on the other-hand would probably not be appropriate as it truely is for all New Thought teachings. Thank you 66.108.145.152 whoever you are (do you have a nickname?). -- Low Sea (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ANTN is an org. for independent Religious Science Ministries. Great organization.

JGG59 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoever added ANTN - thanks. If you go to their website, you can see they are the third largest RS/SOM group.  I added the website links to all the groups, and therefore removed the reference request.  A previous version of the article also discussed GRSM, but they don't seem to be large enough to put into the Organization section.  They are in the links at the bottom.  --Wonbillions (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I also tried to include the fact that the two largest RS/SOM organizations (UCSL and RSI) are talking about getting back together (based on a 9/11/07 meeting and a subsequent internal UCSL document). However, editor Hrafn did not allow it, since he thought that document which I referenced is not sufficient. Since that fact is not in the history books yet, is it REALLY necessary to reference a book? What do you think?--Wonbillions (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also heard about the "re-unification" effort between these two but I think Hrafn is right (which is rare, we often agree to disagree) as you need a WP:RS such as an article in a non-R.Sc. news source. Might want to keep an eye out for new articles from general religon newsletters and of course any official press releases from either or (better) both of these groups. <P> In the meantime try building a subsection under History that describes the reasons for and the timeline of the split of these two groups. That way when a RS can be cited, you will have the perfect place to add the information. -- Low Sea (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

More Changes
Hi again Hrafn and Quizoid....While waiting for comments from my RS/SOM friends and minister (and other friends and family), I found some needed changes (additions to 2 paragraphs)and also took a crack at eliminating the jargon from the Core Concepts (as Quizoid agreed needed fixing). To avoid the jibberish that Hrafn seemed to see, I did it directly in the article. I also first checked it out in my personal "sandbox." I'll go to this Discussion page regularly, so please give me any suggestions for further change here. Thanks mucho--Wonbillions (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonbillions: I have real problems with the layout of your new version. On each point you first paraphrase using Holmes' own language and then offer a second paraphrase as an 'explanation' (a paraphrase of a paraphrase essentially) of it in every-day English. This is incredibly clumsy and renders it virtually unreadable. I think a better way forward would be to either (1) offer just an every-day English paraphrase or (2) offer direct quotes of Holmes with footnotes explaining them (perhaps making use of the SoM Glossary). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 04:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great idea, Hrafn. The Glossary in the Science of Mind text book is much more detailed, but I think it would be better to cite the on-line version to facilitate reader study.  I'll work on it as soon as I find some time.

Thanks,--Wonbillions (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant Statement?
"Religious Science should not be confused (due to a similarity in names) with Christian Science or Scientology. While Christian Science and Religious Science share a common root in history they are not the same teaching, and neither of these organizations have any connections with Scientology."

This seems to be a set of redundant sentences. Can we remove the first one or just rewrite the set? Crmadsen (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2nd statement appears to be an elucidation of the first, so is valid. I must admit however, that I am uncomfortable with this section, and would prefer to see it handled in a more standardised & less intrusive manner with a disambiguation template at the top of the article. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC+

Jesus / Bible
To reference the Buddha who is mentioned a dozen times and not Jesus 48 times is misleading all pages were referenced. The pages were listed that referenced the Bible and Jesus.66.108.95.79 (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction Jesus is referenced by name no less then 119 times.JGG59 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I referenced each page which references Jesus, now mind you Jesus can be mentioned several times on each page. To Leave this page as it were, that only references the Buddha is misleading to any one reading the article.JGG59 (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also since the references for the Buddha were considered in line with Wiki and left in the article. I see no problem with the references for Jesus.JGG59 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem wasn't a statement that the book is referenced to the teachings of Jesus, but that this book "is based largely on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible". The latter is interpretation and so requires a WP:SECONDARY source. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that statement was changed and the reference was still removed. That is why I entered the references page by page. No harm done it is all good. Have a good night!66.108.95.79 (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

= Distinguish tag: Religious Studies =

I added "Religious Studies" to the Distinguish tag, because, at least outside the US, "Religious Science" is used quite often as the English translation of what is described as "Religious Studies" here in Wikipedia, i. e. the scientific "study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions." Two examples from Germany (German for Religious Studies is Religionswissenschaft): --Biologos (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.uni-jena.de/en/Religious_Science.html
 * Stietencron, H. v. (1993): Der Begriff der Religion in der Religionswissenschaft. [The Concept of Religion as used in Religious Science]. In: W. Kerber (Ed.): Der Begriff der Religion. Ein Symposium. München, pp. 111-158. (http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/aid/orissa/publication.html )

I'm confused both are german translations. I understand your concerns but this is in English.JGG59 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the Distinguish tag was that it is used to keep people from confusing terms that look similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DISTINGUISH#On_article_pages confirms my understanding. It says there under "Where to put it": Top of articles with deceptively similar titles. So it has nothing to do with what the articles are about (denominations, sciences, whatever) but what the article titles look like. To understand that Christian Science, Religious Science and Scientology are sorts of denominations, and Religious Studies is not, one first needs to read the articles on these terms. The distinguish tag is obviously designed to spare people this work. Do you agree that the titles "Religious Science" and "Religious Studies" are deceptively similar, even to English native speakers, maybe even more similar than "Religious Science" and "Scientology"?--Biologos (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But I'm still confused you are talking about a German word translated to English. Actually the confusion between Religious Science and Scientology has been ongoing since Scientology being created.  I believe the intension was meant for German to German  or  English to English not German to English or to any other Language. That is why Wiki is published in many Languages  66.108.95.79 (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to discuss with you who the different language versions of Wikipedia are for and how we can make sure that Wikipedia is as usable as possible for its audience, but as I have shown above, we don't need this discussion to answer the question of whether Religious Studies should be included in the Distinguish tag or not. The term is "deceptively similar" to Religious Science. Do you agree?--Biologos (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"About" tag
As has been shown above, there is potential for confusing "Religious Science" and "Religious Studies", and at least with non-native speakers, this potential is actually translated in using the term "Religious Science" for what - in the USA and in Great Britain - is usually called "Religious Studies" nowadays (see discussion from May 2010). Since there was opposition to using "Religious Studies" in the Distinguish tag before, I added an About tag to help users find what they are looking for.--ReliEins (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

= See also / ref =

I removed a pile of see-also's and abbreviated a "ref" but an anon persists in re-adding.

The see-also's I removed are already linked in the article. As WP:ALSO sayeth Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section. I've no idea why the anon wants to restore these, as she isn't saying.

As to the ref: there is a misunderstanding here. The ref itself is essentially WP:OR: a reference for the claim In 1926 Holmes published The Science of Mind, which references the teachings of Jesus Christ should be a secondary reference which says so. It should *not* be a link to the book itself, and a list of pages numbers Holmes, Ernest (1926) SOM Publishing, Science of Mind pages 87, 98, 103, 104, 106, 110, 127, 139, 140, 157, 160, 161, 162, 173, 187, 188, 194, 203, 206, 212, 217, 237, 241, 359, 260, 268, 276, 277, 280, 281, 285, 286, 290, 310, 311, 312, 313, 317, 329, 330, 331, 332, 334, 335, 337, 343, 344, 359, 361, 362, 363, 365, 366, 367, 368, 377, 381, 386, 421, 422, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 433, 435, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 444, 448, 449, 456, 457, 460, 463, 467, 472, 479, 480, 481, 482, 490, 495, 496. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)