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)