Talk:Mary Baker Eddy

approach to this article

Since so much as been written about Mary Baker Eddy in more than two dozen biographical printed works, and so much is available on the web, the purpose here is only to provide links and pointers to some of the more objective, comprehensive sources of information. I don't anticipate this article becoming a sort of biographical sketch (like over in Wikipedia), as that would only be redundant.Pat Palmer (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There were a few inaccuracies in the previous version of this article that I felt should be addressed. It’s not accurate to say that Eddy was poor and homeless for the first half of her life. As Robert Peel brings out, her father, Mark Baker, “was a moderately successful farmer, with five horses, eight oxen, three cows, nearly two hundred acres of farm, woodlot, and pasture” (Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery, p. 4). She was neither poor nor homeless during the first 22 years of her life. Following the death of her first husband, especially during times of invalidism, she sometimes experienced poverty and dependence on others for a place to live. Also, I feel it’s essential to at least make reference to the pivotal healing experience in 1866 that was indispensable in setting the course for the second half of her life as a renowned religious reformer. I also believe it would not be accurate to say that the first half of Eddy’s life was “for her times, unusual.” In the same volume quoted above, Peel observes: “The womenfolk spun and wove and baked and scrubbed, bore children and cared for them, while the men and the bigger boys went off to the fields to dig and hoe and plant and reap in the age-old fashion of the sweating sons of Adam. This is the elementary pattern into which the Bakers fitted, and there is no reason to suppose that their life in its physical essentials differed from that of any other good New Hampshire family” (p. 12).

While I think the point is well taken that Science and Health is a book of deep religious and philosophical significance, noting similarities between Christian Science and Buddhism without pointing out important differences ends up being misleading. See, for example, Amy B. Voorhees, A New Christian Identity, p. 155. I thought Eddy’s handling of the knotty problem of theodicy might serve well in bringing home the religio-philosophical significance of her chief work.

The outstanding quotation from Gill on Science and Health I believe is strengthened by removing the first sentence, which makes the odd and insupportable claim that Christian Science loyalists attacked and avoided Science and Health. There are other changes that I believe will further strengthen this article, but this seems like plenty for now.Scott Thompson (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

another thing needed

I think this article would benefit by the addition of something (reasonably brief, if possible) about "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures", an important, often underestimated work of deep philosophical and/or religious impact.Pat Palmer (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)