Talk:Mary Baker Eddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary Baker Eddy article.
Article policies
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Flag of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Portal
Mary Baker Eddy is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard. For more information on this project or to get involved see the WikiProject Massachusetts project page.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous

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

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

---

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

---

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

[edit] Have begun the footnoting process

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

[edit] Balance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me offer a solution/compromise. After looking at some similar biographical pages, it seems what may be needed here is a Wikipedia article on "Controversy Surrounding Christian Science." This is very similar to the Wiki link off of the Joseph Smith page. It would also provide a place to put some of the argumentation currently on the Christian Science and Church of Christ, Scientist pages that will facilitate their cleanup. Do go be man can then put an external link to Christianway.org on that page.
If that is not acceptable, a link to specific places on the Christianway.org site dealing with alternative views or criticism of Mary Baker Eddy's biography would seem more appropriate than the current link which points to the christianway.org web site as a whole. Digitalican 18:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Peel Book not originally church-authorized

Robert Peel's trilogy on Eddy was not published originally by the CS church, nor was it, from the beginning, so-called authorized literature. All that - developed later. Consequently, in the biography section I changed the wording to read "eventually church authorized.SimonATL 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but to call it definitive is a bit much, smacks of POV to me 165.146.95.152 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually it pretty much is the definitive work and long is likely to be; Gillian Gill explicitly acknowledges as much also in her own not exactly lightweight work. Also volume 3 was not published by the church, but that doesn't mean the church had problems with it, the Reading Rooms carried it from day one. Plus "authorized" was a term long in disuse,m so the point is kind of silly. Chris Rodgers 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Gill Book not authoritative

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

[edit] Critical perspectives

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

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

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

Regarding the Christian Way dispute, I see a minimal amount of content there that covers Eddy's biography specifically, with some minor details which might be added here. (Though given the anti-CS nature of the site, I would seek out a more reliable source.) [1] I don't think it's appropriate for this article, but it is appropriate for Christian Science, and indeed it's already listed there under Criticism.

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

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

[edit] Possible Source - up to you

I've found a reliable source with a passing mention. I don't know enough about MBE to evaluate if using it would create an undue weight issue. So I'll quote and cite for you - go to edit mode to see the full citation. It is a short paragraph in a section on Warren, Maine. "The founder of Christian Science spent some time here in 1864. Then Mrs. Patterson, she gave several lectures which she reported in a series of charming letters. Publicly advertised title of one of her lectures was 'P. P. Quimby's Spiritual Science Healing Disease - as opposed to Deism or Rochester-Rapping-Spiritualism.'[1]" GRBerry 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


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

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

[edit] Founder of a religion?

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

[edit] Quimby connection plus distinction materials added

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

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

[edit] Article moving further from neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template: Wikipedia Rational Skepticism

This article is about a religion, its founder and/or its organizational structure. I don't find this template on other religions, their founders, or church organizations, such as Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unity Church, New Thought, Religious Science, etc. This template does not belong here. I see that many of the religions cited have Wikiprojects of their own and/or are part of the Wikiproject on Christianity. Someone just added that here, which is fine. Why not a Wikiproject on the Christian Science religion? clariosophic clariosophic 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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


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

[edit] her crusade against the flesh

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Eddy's influences, Controversy Et. Al.

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

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

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

Regards, Thanatos-Lupercus

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

First, most if not all of your criticisms apply to Christian Science rather than Mary Baker Eddy. This is, after all, a biographical article not an article about the church or the belief system. As such, criticisms of the church are misplaced.
There's a more general point here in that there's a difference between balance and neutrality. An accumulation of "pro" and "con" sections does not make an article neutral, it makes it unreadable. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum.
In terms of influences, I feel like you're trying to have it both ways. You reject her (or Christian Science's) influence on Christianity and ask for documentation, yet you assert an influence by Hinduism without a shred of evidence other than they seem similar. (Just because we look alike doesn't mean we're biological brothers.) I'd assert (without documented evidence beyond letters and newspaper columns in the 19th century) that Christian Science has historically certainly influenced American Protestantism. While I'd agree that certain aspects of Christian Science resemble eastern thought, there's no indication that Eddy was more than peripherally in contact with them. Sometimes, though you take a different path, you get to the same ending point.
Finally, I'm very disrespectful of anonymous edits that make bold assertions or have major consequences. It has something to do with accountability. Digitalican (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Digitalcan,

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

Regards,
Thanatos-Lupercus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.25.103 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh and for the record, Digitalcan, CS is directly influenced by Hinduism, via yogic teachings, which of course also assert that the physical world is not real, Quimby had connections with this, and subsequently Eddy learned from Quimby (Who would later be regarded as the father of New Thought.) whether this is stated in a "sponsored" or "Sponsored research" bit of bologna, I don't know; however, I do know that Eddy never influenced, science, (science is based on Facts and, oddly enough, original research.) medicine, (unless you call condemning medicine outright, and declaring diseases to be Illusion an "influence", then sure she influenced it, negatively. Alternative medicine like reiki and whatnot might qualify however.) and Christianity (She actually takes a greatly anti-christian stance, denying primary tenets, and regarding God as something more like "The Force" than anything else, if you'd read the resources I added, you'd note this).
Now, you being a devotee, I'm sure you were conditioned to ignore these things, part and parcel of the job after all. This information however, Does belong in the Biography, as much as the other sections' (which I have left completely alone As you can see) talking of "her religion" etc. Why? Because you cannot seperate an individual who starts a "religion" from the religion itself, unless of course you want to sterilize the whole shebang of any religious mention, but that wouldn't be very biographical, would it?
What I see occuring here, is an article that prattles on about how good and awesome ad nauseam she was, veiled though it may be, and so, it requires cons to even out it's pros, yes Balance even, which is actually the same thing as Neutrality (If a submarine makes it's tendency to sink match with it's tendency to float, it's called Neutral Bouyancy, of course if you want to correct the Navy on this, feel free.) unless of course, wikipedia's definition of neutrality diverges from the mainstream and *accepted* version.
Lastly, this may be Jimbo's lil attempt at internet communism (a nice idea but not viable.), but as with it's physical world counterpart it doesn't work, as it fails to account for the fact that some people are just plain evil, and usually get into positions of power (MEDCAB or whatever you want to call it, joke as it may be made out to be..same as people's party of China.) and once there, generally stay (George W, prime example of this). As for her school of thought, even the sections existant already in this article suggest it's Personal Revelation, just as much as joseph smith's deal; Philosophy? Sure...but Christianity? Since jim jones based his suicide cult on Christianity, does that *make it* Christianity? Of course not.
In lieu of your continual removing of the aforementioned sections, and against my better judgement, (Since I already can guess where this will end up.) I'd like to make a formal request for Arbitration, preferably by a Party or parties who have no connection to either Christianity or CS, that their descision won't be partial to either side. Agreed?
Regards,
Thanatos-Lupercus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.81.28 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digitalcan,
Called in the Artillary did we? And with Rollback powers no less, my my... Just so you know, their efforts are futile, my IP is Dynamic, so unless they were to ban, say, all of earthlink, I'd still be around. However since my guess was obviously prophetic, I withdraw, yep have the article all to yourself, this is not because I cannot provide sources for my statements, but rather because I do not wish to fight an old man and the equivilant of the Red Guard over a cult founder's pseudobio. That and this little experiment has proved that the anti-sites are pretty acurate in their evalulation, I doubt you will, but look into them sometime...like this one: wikisucks(dot)blogspot(Period)com (not mine, may sound similar, but not mine). Sure, I have time to burn, but why are you wasting what ya got left maintaining an article? Strikes me as odd..eh well Find something better to do, like I'm doing; and what did I say about internet communism?
Groovy as this experiment was...I just don't jive with this anymore, enjoy your promotion to the MEDCAB, also, delete this section as needed, gotta have more space for them fluffy folks to post their praise afterall. Oh and what's that verse? Something about "what we are taught as children we never depart from." or something?
Sayonara,
Thanatos-Lupercus 172.192.57.37 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)