Talk:Christian Science

no discussion of negative impact or controversy?

it feels EXTREMELY disingenuous and unbalanced to me that there isn't a section of this article specifically dedicated to the controversy and negative impacts of Christian Science -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Wikipedia page, for instance, has a whole "criticism and controversies" section, but Christian Science just gets passing mention in the overall summary of the past child cases, as if there aren't multiple continued, current documented Christian Science community deaths, illness outbreaks, etc, and extensive discussion of Christian Science as a cult by ex-members...this feels even more like an oversight when considering how detailed sections like the "prayer" part of the article are, or other detailed metaphysical explanations about the church's beliefs, with maybe interspersed nods to them being questionable. 72.249.242.210 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add this section if you have good sources and enough content; you can move much of the related content & sources from “healing” into your new section. Livin270 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll pretend that you didn't do it, Wikipedia guest. Rdgscratch is back (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Relation to other articles

I'm having a hard time grasping the relation of this article to our other Wikipedia articles. It's very similar to Church of Christ, Scientist. Both contain history, beliefs, and practices. The only real distinguishing feature I see is § Metaphysical family which provides some more context for the early development of Christian science beliefs and practices. So what's the difference in scope? Even if such a difference can be established, are our articles better for being split or would they be better merged?

History of the Christian Science movement also exists, and is partially organized topically rather than chronologically, which seems unsuitable for such an article. Perhaps portions of that article and Christian Science § Metaphysical family should be merged into an article at Development of Christian Science beliefs? Daask (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Extreme lack of sources critical of church

This article is considerably biased towards the rhetoric that of the Church. It does not document the lack of formal medical training of Christian Science "nurses", nor does it document the numerous deaths resulting from parents not getting medical treatment for their children. This article is should in fact not even be a GA.— Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 06:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Shakerism (Father-Mother)

There is a little mention under the section on CS theology of Eddy's similarity to Shakerism (which she may well have been softly influenced by in early life) but I feel it too closely implies a connection between Lee's version of a "Father-Mother God" with Eddy's. They are quite different theologies past the surface level, so the reference here seems pretty out of place. If nobody is opposed to me adding a little clarification in the section outlining a little further this point, I will. I would like to, in fact, make clear the distinction from Shakerism (which can be sourced pretty easily from Peel) since it seems a pressing enough misconception that it ought to be addressed, at least in brief. If it is too tangential for the article, however, I think the reference to Shakerism should be dropped entirely. As it lies, it is rather too vague and may lead to a misunderstanding, especially for the lay reader. Thanks all. ~2026-11646-24 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Additions Made by Soderstromverrier

Hello, I saw that the user @Soderstromverrier has been contributing a huge quantity of edits, many reverted, some multiple times, and I have some issues with the edits made after those reverts. I wanted to start this talk page to see if some issues can be worked out and reach a resolution. My current issue with the article is that there have been multiple either incorrect or seemingly heavily biased edits from Soder, such as this, where footnote 9 right after clearly refutes it, or here, which claims that Christian Science is more scripturally based than the New Thought movement, showing a clear bias. While I do appreciate the intention of some of Soder's contributions, such as this one, (I could see how it might be important to more clearly emphasize that Eddy's teachings weren't didn't come from Quimby), however it attributes factual claims to the book written by Gill that aren't there.

I think that given how widespread Soder's edits are, and the current low quality of some of those edits, that it might be best to revert to this past version, and keep editing from there. I would appreciate any thoughts on this.

Now speaking to Soder, I appreciate that you are passionate about this subject and seem to want to contribute. I hope that whatever happens to this page, that you can continue to contribute after, and harness your passion to better wikipedia. I do ask however that you read up a bit on the style and best practices used here on wikipedia, particularly WP:Primary. I know you were a bit confused as to why some of those on your talk page were saying you shouldn't use primary sources, so here is an example as to why the rules are the way they are. If I were to claim that Lincoln was not anti-slavery, and cite one of his speeches or letters, you could just as easily claim that he was, and cite a different speech. That is why reliable secondary sources are so important, because they can much more reliably look at all of the sources and figure out what is out of context or what opinions might have changed over his life, then we can swoop in and cite that secondary source and say something along the lines of, "While Lincoln was less vocal about his anti-slavery positions earlier in life, his private letters support that he was anti-slavery his whole life and only grew more vocal about the subject after being elected" (no clue how accurate this is, it's just an example). If anyone has any other suggestions as to things for you to look into, I suggest they suggest those.

I hope we can all work together to figure out a resolution for this- Therealdoomcat (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree with revert, the additions since then have been a mix of subtle and not-so-subtle POV pushing that have badly degraded the article. Bon courage (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand that primary sources are in general questioned by Wikipedia-- unless access to the primary sources is widespread, as it is in the case of Eddy's Science & Health. If one were to quote largely secondary sources, which may be biased, there is no gain in terms of scholarship.

I have not been able to learn how to cite individual pages in Science & Health despite studying the instructions.

My question remains how to improve the scholarship of this article.

Soderstromverrier Soderstromverrier (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The reference to Gill questioned above is accurate. Quimby left no manuscripts and did not publish articles or books. Gill writes (pp. 143-144) that Quimby left in his own handwriting "only a few pages of a single, highly contentious document.... The rest of the P.P. Quimby autographs are personal letters or drafts that eloquently testify to his incapacity to spell simple words or write a simple, declarative sentence." Soderstromverrier (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. You are correct on that point. I was only looking at pages 119-121, which were the ones cited. I should have done a more thorough check through the source, I appreciate you pointing me to the right pages. Perhaps for that section, instead of mentioning the manuscripts at all (which might be confusing for the reader, as it is referencing a whole argument and discussion that is unknown to the readers), it could reference the last paragraph of page 146? (I've spent about 10 minutes trying to figure out how to word it coherently but just kept failing, perhaps you can work something out?) Therealdoomcat (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to ask if you have any defense of the first two edits I reverenced. Also, can I ask why you essentially added all of your reverted edits back? I waited 2 days after making this talk post, pointing you to it multiple times, and being in discussion with you about resources to learn about wikipedia best practices. After that time, I didn't see any reply from you and so decided to go ahead with it. Is there a reason you decided to re-add those reverted edits, including the ones I pointed out, without any discussion here first?

I think it would be best to get some third parties involved at this point. Both to help us figure this out and also perhaps to point you to resources that I am unaware of that might explain things better than I could. Therealdoomcat (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Therealldoomcat. While I am a donor to Wikipedia, I am not well-versed in the style or process. I come to this effort with a background in English writing and editing. And have spent the last 30 years editing articles (and finding references) in medical science for physicians and research scientists.

Accurate citation is really important to establish scholarship.

What is the best way to resume? From the reversion of the very first sentence, I take it that you deny that Christian Science is a religion. Yet, the law allows the use of "Church of Christ, Scientist."

Again, if I could understand how to cite different pages of sources, I could provide a well-referenced text.

I cannot understand why you want to cite Gill page 146 final paragraph, which contains her conclusions not her findings.

Soderstromverrier Soderstromverrier (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

"I take it that you deny that Christian Science is a religion" I don't, perhaps I should have been more clear. When I suggested to revert all the way, it was because you had made over 100 edits at that point (though many had already been reverted), and they permeated the entire article. Given the clear bad quality of a few of your edits, (the ones I pointed out), it would have taken many many hours to scrutinize each and every edit you made. I was hoping that we could wipe the slate clean, perhaps you could read up on the different resources I provided you, and then we can all work together to better the article. The reversion was for everything, even good ones you made like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&diff=prev&oldid=1349964976. I was hoping that we could add the good ones back afterwards. I don't think it is not a religion by any means.

As for different pages, again I point to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source. I would suggest using {{rp}} as it suggests in there. To do so in visual edit, after inserting a citation to Science and Health for example, type a double bracket {{ and then a window should pop up that mentions templates. Search "rp" and a template for Reference Pages should pop up. Click that, then just insert the page numbers you want. That will make something that looks like ^[1]:25-28. Template:Reference page is the full documentation. Hopefully if you have issues, you might be able to find answers to them there.

As to my suggestion to use page 146, it is specifically because it is conclusions and not findings. The way you edited the section previously, a reader just randomly stumbles upon a reference to manuscripts that were fake without any context as to why that is at all important or relevant (they don't know for example that the controversy mentioned by Gill included fights about fake manuscripts produced by followers of quimby in order to bolster their claims about Eddy taking part or much of her ideas from Quimby (as an aside to this aside, Gill (at least in the parts I have had time to read so far, so feel free to disagree on this) doesn't seem to discredit that some of Eddy's ideas could have come from her time talking with Quimby, only that there weren't manuscripts she pulled from)). If we want to discuss all those things about the manuscripts and make them into another paragraph, that is an option, however, I don't think that would add much to the article as a whole, and if we want to clarify that that controversy didn't have very strong legs, it would be better to add and edit along the lines of: ...what biographer Gillian Gill would call the "single most controversial issue" of her life, though according to Gill, much of the evidence produced was "not only weak but largely rigged". and then add the page 146 citation.

Finally, I ask again about those two edits I brought up.

Cheers, and I hope the more detailed explanation of citing pages helps- Therealdoomcat (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Soderstromverrier I've asked twice that you discuss the first two edits I brought up in this talk page. I'm going to go ahead and remove those edits. If you revert them again without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing. - Therealdoomcat (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Which two edits would you like me to discuss? My delays are entirely due to my compressed schedule and no absence of my interest in seeing better scholarship brought to this article.

1? Footnote 9:

2? Christian Science is more Scripturally based than the New Thought movement: The Wikipedia article on New Thought indicates that it represented accumulated wisdom and philosophy from a variety of origins such as Ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Chinese, Daoist, Hindu, and Buddhist cultures" and so forth. By definition, Christian Science is more Scripturally based, as it confines its intellectual resources to the Hebrew and Christian Bible. William James, cited in Wikipedia on "New Thought," names transcendentalism as a source.

I would like to learn from you which of my changes you consider "poor." I think that if I had known how to create page references, I could have presented it more accurately.

Soderstromverrier Soderstromverrier (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

First, exactly the two which you guessed are the two which I meant. As for the second change, the New Thought movement has a wide variety of descendants, including the Unity Church, which is certainly based (to one degree or another) on the bible. And just as it would be inappropriate for someone to just add to the wiki on Presbyterianism that it is more scripturally based than catholicism, it is inappropriate to add it to this page. If you wanted, you could find a source talking about the different influences on Christian Science vs the New Thought movement, but that is more applicable to the New Thought page. Also, Christian science doesn't only confine its resources to the bible, it also uses Science and Health. Also also, that bit you quoted from the New Thought page was added with zero citations by a rando in 2020, so I will have to go and fix that later. I'll respond to your other reply probably tomorrow. Cheers- Therealdoomcat (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Footnote 9: Do you mean the current footnotes12 and 13?

Christian Science's religious tenets differ considerably from many other Christian denominations, including key concepts such as the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, atonement, the resurrection, and the Eucharist.

This statement is inaccurate on several points. It is true that Christian Science is a nontrinitarian Christian religion, as is stated in the opening line of the article. Christian Science absolutely acknowledges Jesus as the only Christ; in fact, Eddy wrote a bylaw that "members of this Church shall neither entertain a belief nor signify a belief in more than one Christ, even that Christ whereof the Scripture beareth testimony" (Church Manual page 42, line 11).

Jesus' atonement and resurrection and the Eucharist are central teachings, which Eddy discussed in a 38-page chapter in Science and Health (pp 18-55). Had I known how to cite pages, I would have referred the reader to the religious tenets of Christian Science, which are given in Science and Health page 497. They explicitly include: God's forgiveness of sin, Jesus' atonement and man's salvation, Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

I hope I have illustrated the importance of primary sources and how dependence on secondary sources leaves Wikipedia open to bias.

Soderstromverrier Soderstromverrier (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems I was mistaken about the placement of footnote 9 (which I was in fact referring to), when I was going back and forth between writing on this talk page and double checking with what the actual page says, I mixed up paragraph 3 of the intro section with paragraph 2 of the Christian Science Theology section (though in my defense, they have very similar first sentences), and because of that, I thought footnote 9 was right after. But it was footnote 9 that I was pointing to.

As to the importance of primary sources: As stated in Wikipedia:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." and, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." These are simply the policies of Wikipedia. If you disagree with them or think they need changing, I would suggest you discuss that at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, though you would have a very slim chance to manage to change them. But for now, let's agree to follow the current policies set out by Wikipedia. Therealdoomcat (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Therealdoomcat: I have reviewed the current Wikipedia statement on Christian Science and am writing to request your permission and/or that of your superiors to make the following changes, which would improve scholarship by providing reference sources from the final published editions of Eddy’s Science & Health and Manual of The Mother Church and other writings.

In some cases, the statements simply need referencing with specific page numbers, and you kindly explained how to do that.

Another goal is to provide accurate information along with citations to Eddy’s published works following an inaccurate statement.  In some points, the result may look like a contradiction.  I do not request removal of the inaccurate statement but only advocate for the option to allow an author to speak for herself by referencing her final published text.  This approach would constitute an improvement in scholarship and a service to the readership although it may raise questions in readers’ minds about the reliability of the secondary source.

I would be grateful if you would give me permission to make the corrections listed below.

In addition, I would appreciate your pointing out to me which of my edits are of “low quality” or “bad quality.”  I hope that those concerns are addressed by my citing accurate sources.  

Would you please let me know?

Kind regards,  

Soderstromverrier

1.      Christian Science, Paragraph 1: delete page number from reference 6 since this citation refers to the entire book.

2.      Christian Science, paragraph 1, after “along with the Bible,” insert: In fact, Eddy espoused the primacy of Scripture in the first tenet of Christian Science. (References: Eddy, Science and Health, page 497: line 3; Eddy, Manual of The Mother Church, page 15: line 3.)

3.      Christian Science, Paragraph 3: after “and the Eucharist” and its references, insert new sentences: Eddy’s statement of the religious tenets of Christian Science, to which church members must subscribe, (reference: Eddy, Manual of the Mother Church, page 15 line1) includes God’s forgiveness of sin, Jesus’ atonement, crucifixion, and resurrection, and man’s salvation through Christ (reference: Eddy, Science and Health, page 497; Eddy, Manual of the Mother Church, page 15).  Belief in Jesus’ identity as Christ, the Saviour, is a requirement of church membership (reference: Eddy, Manual of the Mother Church, page 42: line 11).

4.      Christian Science, paragraph 4: In the first sentence, provide reference regarding no necessity to avoid medical care [Eddy, Science and Health, pages 443-444] or surgical care [Eddy, Science and Health, page 401].  Second sentence: list page number 443 for reference 6.

5.      Overview, Metaphysical family, first paragraph, insert after “Christian Science”: , which preceded….  Comment: each of the New Thought groups listed was started after 1879.

6.      Overview, Metaphysical family, first paragraph, delete: “from the more authoritarian” to read: … in part to distinguish it from Christian Science. Comment: The Wikipedia writer who inserted the term authoritarian did not cite any source for this term.

7.      Overview, Metaphysical family, second paragraph: A 7^th synonym for God should be added to the list: Soul. Reference 6 should call out Eddy, Science and Health, page 465.  

8.      Christian Science theology, paragraph 2, after resurrection, insert (similar to comment above). Eddy’s statement of the religious tenets of Christian Science, to which church members must subscribe, (reference: Eddy, Manual of the Mother Church, page 15 line1) include God’s forgiveness of sin, Jesus’ atonement, crucifixion, and resurrection, and man’s salvation through Christ (reference: Eddy, Science and Health, page 497; Eddy, Manual of The Mother Church page 15).  Belief in Jesus’ identity as Christ, the Saviour, is a requirement of church membership (reference: Manual of the Mother Church page 42: line 11).

9.      Christian Science theology, paragraph 2: delete: “the material world, with its” and replace “is, an illusion” with: “are illusions"; to read: … and that evil, sickness and death are illusions.  Add reference: Eddy, Science and Health.

10. Christian Science theology, paragraph 4, insert after “according to Wilson [63]”: Bible scholars differentiate Genesis 1:1-2:4a (the P[riestly] version) from Genesis 2:4b-25 (the J[ahwistic] version) as two distinct creation stories.  Add references:

·       Ackroyd, Peter R. The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume I. From the Beginnings to Jerome. Cambridge University Press, 1970, p. 71.

·       Robinson, Theodore H. The Abington Bible Commentary. Abington Press, New York, 1929. Genesis. Introduction. Pages 219-221.

·       Julia Blum. “Beginnings: Genesis.” Israel Institute of Biblical Studies. www.israelbiblicalstudies.com  

11. Christian Science theology, paragraph 4, insert reference after “Eddy did not believe that the dead and living could communicate”: Eddy, Science and Health, pages 74-76, 82.

12. History, Mary Baker Eddy and the early Christian Science movement, paragraph 4, first sentence: add to reference 73 the original publication data for Twain’s book Christian Science: Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 1907.  Since the book is not widely available, the current reference 73 publication data should be retained.   

13. History, The Christian Science movement after 1910, paragraph 1: after “prohibits the church from publishing membership figures: add: referencing the Bible’s directive (II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21) (Reference: Eddy, Manual, page 48, line 16).

14. Healing Practices, Christian Science prayer, first paragraph, add as first sentence: Eddy provided 80 pages of instruction in Christian Science practice in Science and Health (reference: Eddy, Science & Health, pages 362-442).  

15. Church of Christ, Scientist, Services, first paragraph:  Replace second half of first sentence “…with Clergy of other faiths….”  With: Marriage is required to be legal, and Justices of the Peace or clergy from other Christian denominations often officiate.

16. List of Eddy’s publications: Remove The Christian Science Hymnal from the list of books authored by Eddy.  She arranged for the printing but was not the author.   Soderstromverrier (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Therealldoomcat— would you please let me know when I can expect a response to my questions above? 10 days have passed since I registered them. Soderstromverrier Soderstromverrier (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Dear Therealdoomcat— I apologize for misspelling your name. How long should I wait to hear from you? Should we involve another editor at Wikipedia?Soderstromverrier Soderstromverrier (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Soder, I apologize for the very late reply, I have been quite busy and haven't checked Wikipedia at all in a while. I will try to look into each of your suggestions and give you an answer to each by Tuesday (though some of your suggestions seem like they would need me to do a ton of reading (as all theological topics do), but I'll do my best). Also, I think it would be good to involve some more editors as it seems there really aren't many eyes on this page, Ill see if I can find a wikiproject with people interested in helping out Therealdoomcat (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Theraldoomcat— That would be a good step I think to involve some more editors.

Meanwhile, I have tried to find references 12 (Fraser 1999) and 13 (Bryan Wilson 1961). The latter is out of print and not even available through ThriftBooks. The former is not likely to be a reliable, secondary source or commentator on theology and that is not her theme.

So the question I would like to put to the additional editors is whether or not comments from a tertiary source are more suitable than those from a primary source. If you can advise me how I can find Brian Wilson's 1961 book sects and society, I will follow up. Soderstromverrier Soderstromverrier (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)