Talk:The Order of Christ Sophia

Dear Web Managers,

I added several third party references on the Order of Christ Sophia last week. This was to improve the notability of the article. I'm not able to find the article anymore - could you please tell me what happened? Is there more I need to do to help keep this page up?

Thanks

Lucy

Lucy, Even though you added third party references, almost all of the information about doctrine, holy books, and practices is still without citation. It needs to be objective and verfiable. Carinamc (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy or whoever is working on this, I think a good start would be to footnote the sections Carinamc mentions to the appropriate parts of the various books by Bowes (The Radical Path, The Word Within, Spiritual Astrology) and Watts (Giving Birth to God). I could do this, but it would take a fair bit of time. Someone more immediately conversant with these books could probably do a faster/better job. John7137 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)John7137[reply]

clean up/rewrite

This article could use a serious edit for length and staying on point as well as point of view. Anyone interested? --Stormbay (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this article has several secondary sources over the span of several years, is there any reason to keep the non-notable tag on it? Is there any reason I can't remove that myself? - L —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.168.173 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the non-notable tag. The article can stay in Wikipedia. As with many many many pages here, a rewrite would be very beneficial. --Montchav (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you mention a rewrite, what types of issues do you mean? What would need to be addressed in a rewrite? Thank you in advance for the help so we can make this article the best it can be. -L —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.168.173 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Interesting that there is no mention in the article of the NLP techniques being used by the heads of the organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.49.1 (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and removed obviously incorrect statements and corrected some scholarly references, but someone really needs to specifically cite where all the information about doctrine, holy books, etc., comes from. Carinamc (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question objectivity here, due to some recent edits. Someone removed the statement (which I had added) that Raeson Ruiz was never formally given the right to ordain priests and teachers within the Holy Order of MANS, but rather claimed this right later on the basis of a personal spiritual experience. I did not add this as any kind of judgment on the validity of Ruiz's experience or the ordinations which have followed (who am I say anything about that?), but because this fact underlies much of the controversy between the OCS and other groups derived from the Holy Order of MANS. (To give a parallel example, John Wesley began ordaining Methodist ministers although he was never given the right to ordain (via episcopal consecration) in the Church of England, and one needs to understand that fact in order to grasp historical and current Anglican-Methodist discussions about holy orders.) It's just a fact - not a cricitism.

Also, someone removed the set of references to source material for more detailed information (in some cases, directions and full descriptions) of the intiatory practices of this tradition. Again, why? I don't dispute that these sections could have benefitted from re-write, more context, etc, and I certain don't want to engage in a spat of "undo" and "delete," but I am concerned that the pattern of deletion may indicate a desire to avoid controversy, and to discourage access to openly available information which some parties may consider private. John7137 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)160.129.157.195 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Thought - Christian Science

Just for your 411 New Thought and Christian Science developed during the same era and timeline. Now New Thoughts major teaching are Unity Church, Religious Science and Divine Science. Now Christian Science shares many of the same beliefs but Mary Baker Eddy was very definite about God being a Christian and a lot of dogma. New Thought is an ever evolving belief system which is open at the top and open to Truth where ever it is found. So if you are a new New Thought" teaching I would figure out the similarities and steer clear of connecting New Thought to Christian Science (Christian Science will be more than willing to show how New Thought is not like their teaching)LOL. It is interesting to note Mary Bakey Eddy helped herself to a lot of NT teachings and gave no credit to the teachers. Christian Science was never part of the New Thought movement. Unity is the the denomination in NT that most identifies with christianity. you might want to clear or clean that up that in your the article. Take a look at those articles in NT and get a better understanding. Peace 74.73.176.161 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the New Thought page at tenets and beliefs which is what binds the different denominations in the the movement.74.73.176.161 (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat Deletions of Text

Repeatedly, users (Mmclarity (talk) and Driduna (talk)) have removed text that could negatively affect the OCS's reputation. Many times, a removal of almost 1,500 characters was called a minor edit and said something like "irrelevant details" or "minor alterations in language." Both users have repeatedly removed the same sections of text, and Driduna has not responded to messages on his/her talk page. If anyone could keep an eye on this article for the time being (some of us, mostly me, keep undoing edits every few days), that'd be helpful. pcwendland (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]