The Christian Way Forums / The Christian Way Forums / Recovery and Health Issues / Mary Baker Eddy's thoughts about Christian Science nursing facilities / Latest Posts

john — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:47:58 GMT

I will try at some point, TMCL, to obtain a copy of that book. There's going to have to be some real wizardry in it, however, to convince me that MBE (or anyone else) has the right to redefine words at will which are contained in the Bible or any other document.

tmcl — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:23:26 GMT

John,

Regarding what you refer to as the issue of Mrs. Eddy's "redefinition of words," you might be interested in reading the newest biography of Mrs. Eddy, Rolling Away the Stone, by Stephen Gottschalk. Gottschalk discusses that issue as well as a number of other issues you have brought up on these forums.

tmcl

john — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:38:33 GMT

Anonymous:

Yes, I do give this time and take it seriously.

My Dad almost died when I was three because he bought into the false belief system of CS, and believed, via "words" that it was Christian and what Jesus really taught. If it had not been for my mother convincing him to allow her to call an ambulance, I would have grown up without a father. (And to prove what?)

If you have followed the postings of many CW supporters on this website, you will see that there are dozens of us who either personally or via family members have been the victim of MBE's words and thought system. Many have not been as lucky as my Dad and I were. We spend time on this forum because if we can, with the help of God, influence just one person to seek medical help in the short run, and come to know Jesus Christ as their personal savior in the long run, it is worth every minute.

Words mean things and can affect life, liberty, death, happiness (and the pursuit thereof), etc. Surely if you work in a law office where livelihoods depend on words, you would acknowledge that(?)

Per Einstein, I have also heard and read that he supposedly admired CS. That's fine if he wanted to and his priviledge.

My point is that if you want to preach a metaphysical view of the world, OK. You have no right to rewrite an existing document (the Bible) to change its meaning so it does the same. That is dishonest. I'm sure if someone took Einstein's writings and rewrote them (using changed word definitions) while he was still alive to come up with a meaning more to their liking (and contrary to what Einstein wrote!!) he would have been the first to howl!!! (Sometimes genius conflicts with common sense).

I don't know where you stand regarding Christianity or faith, but may I encourage you to do something I did about 30 years ago. That was to read the New Testament from cover to cover and let it speak for itself. If you have not previously done so, it may open up another world.

Best wishes.

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:06:15 GMT

Well, I just cannot let myself get hot under the collar about these things. Here we go again...I'm sure Albert Einstein gave 'matter' a different definition than what you're giving it. I doubt that practicing Christian Scientists (if there are any left) spend less time with MBE's published works than the time you are giving them.

john — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:40:25 GMT

Anonymous:

I am talking about both the letter and the spirit of the words that MBE has taken it upon herself to redefine. She violates both.

As far as dictionaries changing meanings all the time, I challenge you to take one word in the S&H glossary and show me where in Webster or any other dictionary published in the last 100 years the authors have changed or conformed the common definition to be same as that of MBE's. (Take the definition of "matter", for instance.)

The answer, of course, is that you won't. That's why this and other commons words used in S&H are italicized as being MBE's own unique ones (i.e., "Christian Science"), since they can't and shouldn't be accepted as such.

I'm not sure if you've posted before or if you're new to the site, but MBE, in short, had to rewrite the english language in order for her teachings to become "Christian".

The Bible, as written by the authors convenying the meaning as they wanted it to, teaches a Gospel very different than the one MBE preaches. (Don't you think the biblical authors, or anyone else for that matter who writes about events as they witnessed them, or thoughts they wish to convey, deserves enough respect to let their views or opinions stand as they wrote them? The very idea of changing the meaning of an author's words so you can come up with a message more to your liking is both grossly insulting and intellectually dishonest).

Best regards.

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:14:08 GMT

I work for a bunch of lawyers and they understand the difference between the 'letter' and the 'spirit' of the law. Could this apply here? Anyway, dictionaries change all the time. That's why they publish updated editions every few years.

john — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:37:38 GMT

MBE in S&H, p. 587 GOD: " The great I am; the all knowing, all seeing, all acting, all wise, all loving and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life: Truth; Love; all substance; intelligence."

Webster's Dictionary: Principle "a comprehensvie and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption: a rule or code or conduct,...etc. (Also, italicized CS definition noted, which is different than the other plain english descriptions of this word: "A divine principle: GOD"

TMCL:

Yes, you are correct. MBE both in S&H appears to say He is personal, etc.

She also says he is a principle in the above definition, so she wants it both ways. Of course, to be on the same page we literally have to speak the same language, and as Webster has to denote (with the word principle and many others found in the S&H glossary), MBE has come up with different definitions of this and other words. I know we will never agree on the idea that I say she had no right to change the meanings of those words, and you say she did.

Thanks for continuing to reply.

tmcl — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:52:22 GMT

John,

It is interesting how you and I can have such very different ideas as to what Mrs. Eddy teaches. I don't wish to get into a discussion of all the theological issues you raise in your post because I think such a discussion would lead to endless posts and debating over theological and philosophical points, and I don't feel I have the time or energy to devote to that.

But let me say just one thing about God as personal or impersonal. Contrary to what some post in these forums, one can find places in her writings where Mrs. Eddy refers to God as a Person and as personal (as well as referring to Him in other places as impersonal). My understanding of what she means by this is that God is not a person if by "person" is meant a limited, finite, brain-centered personality that is subject to all sorts of things such as mood swings, cheerfulness, depression, etc. God is definitely impersonal to Mrs. Eddy if "person" is defined that way. On the other hand, God is personal to Mrs. Eddy if by Person is meant that God has individuality and consciousness and takes delight in his creations and children, and loves each one of them intimately. He is personal in that he is the Mind that expresses Himself in the endless creativity seen in the universe, etc. He is not impersonal like an unconscious principle that is incapable of feeling or love.

(Amazing how far afield a thread can get that I started because I thought some here would find Mrs. Eddy's vision for CS nursing facilities interesting!)

tmcl

john — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:19:03 GMT

"Sorry, but I can't provide a formula. Mrs. Eddy says that "God will guide you" into the right use of temporary means. Trust in God to guide one is crucial. In my own life I have had excellent and quick healings through prayer in Christian Science and have not at this point in time had to turn to temporary means."

TMCL:

Well, as you said, we will need to agree to disagree.

It is interesting that MBE said "God will guide you" and you say "trust in God to guide" when determing if and when to seek alternative means is crucial.

But isn't the thrust of CS that God is impersonal, and that Christianity is a scientific principal which if practiced correctly, cannot fail? If the scientific application does not work, according to CS, it's not because life is not scientific per mortal mind and error, it's because the individual is not practicing it correctlyat the moment for whatever reason. (The difference between neo CS and the old CS culture, I gather from your postings, is not one of basic doctrine, but in tolerance for failure, and openess to seeking "alternative means" without stigma if the individual fails to have a healing for whatever reason).

This is a far cry from what I believe, and yet what you would seem to be embracing in the above statement. Namely, that God is a personal God, who may or may not decide to intervene and heal according to his wishes and purposes at the time. Faith in a personal God, and specifically the Triune God, rests not in that you can or will have a healing, but that whether you do or not is in accordance with His purposes, and His Will be done accordingly.

It almost sounds (and I'm sure this is not your intention) like you are trying to have it both ways.

tmcl — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:31:41 GMT

Marion wrote:

I guess in the US there are many CSists who would not let their kids attend relevant biology lessons.

Marion,

This is something I was thinking of starting a thread about, but never did. Some on these fourms have talked about their experiences as children/teenagers of being exempted from certain aspects of biology and health/hygiene classes due to their families being CS. In years gone by I used to hear talk of this among Christian Scientists, but don't recall having heard about it in the past several years -- which makes me wonder if Christian Science parents are still generally seeking such exemptions for their children these days. Recently I was talking with a dedicated Chistian Scientist mother who has children of the age when they would be taking such classes and I asked her if she and her husband have sought to have their children be exempt from taking those classes. She said she would never consider doing such a thing -- that she feels it is unnecessary and would make the children feel strange and isolated.

For myself, I would not be in favor of having children exempted from such classes, and I have never heard of Mrs. Eddy ever saying that such exemptions should be sought. I wonder when the practice of seeking such exemptions got started. Was it in Mrs. Eddy's time or afterwards? This might be a good research project for someone to undertake sometime.

I think there is substantial evidence that Mrs. Eddy herself had a pretty extensive knowledge of anatomy, etc. And even in the Massachusetts Metaphysical College in the 1880s, Mrs. Eddy would teach classes in obstetrics. She would teach the metaphysical aspects and have a medical doctor in the class to teach the anatomical and physiological aspects.

tmcl

Spring — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:27:56 GMT

TMCL,

The last few posts reminded me of discussions about ex CSists needing to be educated regarding the medical system and possible diseases, symptoms etc. I guess in the US there are many CSists who would not let their kids attend relevant biology lessons. That is more than not seeking medical help when you are in need, that way these persons wouldn't even be able to tell whether the symptoms they experience are pointing to something serious or not.

I think the Committees on Publication and/or TMC were doing their utmost to make sure these excemptions were possible. What do they do now in this regard.

Dawn Comes,

I think I mentioned before that I see a difference between literature officially distributed and especially so if that serves to "teach the method" from writings which were not intended for publication by the individual who wrote it. That means in the understanding of MBE's teachings as she intended them to be understood I would place a much lesser value to the things she did not specifically give her followers to study as CS.

Marion

dawn comes — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:44:19 GMT

I can only speak for myself, but I doubt anyone who posts here of the pain caused in the lives of loved ones due to CS intends to 'defend' the 'old CS culture'. I say only that I, personally, believe that most ordinary folks in the hinterlands studied Science and Health as they were instructed to do, and attempted to live lives that demonstrated their understanding. Although I see things in S & H that are contradictory, I see plenty to justify the belief system that you say built up following her death. If she truly believed her followers did not need to demonstrate the nothingness of what she termed error in their daily lives, perhaps she should have made it clearer in the textbook. I do not doubt what you say concerning her larger intentions...I say it is a shame one has to dig so hard to figure it all out. I wish so much that my family members had been among the many who ignored local church constraints and 'mixed' CS and materia medica. They chose not to, and we paid the price in many ways. I don't glorify that, but it really happened and it is sad.

I, for one, am hopeful that you are speaking for a majority of CS today. If it is true that more 'liberal' interpretations of MBE's intentions are taking hold in the Field, it can only lead to fewer individuals affected as negatively as my family has been. Maybe someday all CS children will have immunizations, well baby checks, and recognition of their suffering.

tmcl — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:39:06 GMT

John,

Sorry, but I can't provide a formula. Mrs. Eddy says that "God will guide you" into the right use of temporary means. Trust in God to guide one is crucial. In my own life I have had excellent and quick healings through prayer in Christian Science and have not at this point in time had to turn to temporary means. But I recognize the plight of those who find themselves in situations in which, in spite of much prayer, no progress is apparent and the condition may even be deteriorating. I have seen a number of Christian Scientists I know turn to temporary means such as operations for appendicitis, taking epilepsy medication, etc. where their situation has worked out well and they have continued on as dedicated Christian Scientists and have had other healings through prayer.

Also, I believe that you and I have different concepts of what Mrs. Eddy means by "radical reliance." As I study the passage in question, it seems to me that by "radical reliance on Truth," Mrs. Eddy means that if you are relying on Christian Science treatment to heal a condition you don't divide your faith between it and medical means. You write as though "radical reliance" means that, come what may, you NEVER turn to a doctor or any medical means whatever. I think it means that you don't mix methods of treatment. If you decide to turn to medical means to heal a condition, you discontinue specific Christian Science treatment to heal that condition, but that of course, does not mean you discontinue prayer or even Christian Science treatment to heal other conditions you might have.

I realize that you disagree with all of this and even find it repugnant. But I have seen it work well. I always get the feeling in reading this site that some of the exers here are trying to constantly in some sense "defend" the old "Christian Science culture" and somehow find it disturbing that some Christian Scientists today are seeing things in a different light. Be that as it may, Christian Scientists will surely move ahead from their own current prespectves on Mrs. Eddy's writings and hopefully not worship the past of the "CS culture." And I'm sure that you and I will, once again, have to agree to disagree.

tmcl

john — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:49:51 GMT

"I must object to your generalization of my views as “seeking medical help in the same day if confronted with failure.” You apparently got this from my responses to the two scenarios you presented to me in a recent post. But my responses were based on the fact that both scenarios involved situations where the patients could well have been dead by the next day if something was not done immediately to alleviate the situation. I did not intend to present some kind of formula involving exactly how long one should have treatment through prayer before seeking other means if not healed."

TMCL:

A formula is exactly what I'm looking for, and if you are saying there is a neo CS school of thought which is at odds with the CS Culture/Radical Reliance school, I almost think you have to have that to distinguish the two approaches.

It is true that the two hypothetical examples I cited were ones where it is obvious that the persons were in danger if they didn't receive some kind of effective treatment soon (whether it be CS or medical). Where I think your neo CS school breaks down is the not so obvious cases which could or could not be serious and often aren't discernable until they prove disabling or deadly. Consider these (again hypothetical, but probably have occured somewhere in CS history)

-an infant has a 103 degree temperature for 12 hours which is not going down. Prayer is applied and a practitioner called. The fever remains. Is it just a high tempature which will run its course, or something else (Meningitis?). Should the parents keep praying or consult a physician?

- an adult is knocked unconcious. He wakes up, and other than some pain, seems to be OK. But is he? Should he call a doctor to make sure he doesn't have a concussion after a certain period of time?

- your teenager is in a auto accident. He has no visible signs of injury, but his leg feels funny around the ligements (and he is willing to admit this!!!) Is it just a bruise or perhaps a torn ligament or something worse? (This situation actually happend to my son. He had to go to nine rehab sessions with a PT for it to be healed.)

- a CS lady has a lump in her breast. Prayer, etc., is applied. A week or month goes by and it is still there. Prayers continue and so does the lump. Is it mortal mind, a benign cyst, or a cancerous tumor that is going to cause another CSist to die young?

My intent her is not to get you to answer another round of hypothetical questions as to when you would keep working with CS or throw in the towel and seek medical help. Instead, it is to illustrate that the alternative CS lifestyle which is opposed to the established CS culture you criticize is easier said than lived. Yes, I am looking for a formula, because without one, you have an alternative formula for confusion and second guessing on the part of the CS member (and his fellow members) that could know no bounds.

As an illustration, I think (and we will probably have to agree to disagree on this), that DeWitt John did address temporary means in the sense that these means are not brought up as an option on page 18 of his book which CSist's should consider, and if he/she does, still remain in the good graces of CS.(which you say MBE says folks can do) E.g., while TMC did not or do not physically restrain (no pun intended) any CS from seeking medical help, it obvious that he views those who do as having "crossed the line". The final four paragraphs of this page certainly say that:

"No church rule exists prohibiting a Christian Scientist from choosing whatever type of help he wishes. He is not under any compulsion: he is free to make his own choice. At the same time, Christian Scientists recognize that under ordinary circumstances it is useless to try to combine medical methods and Christian Science treatments; it doesn't work. This applies not only to treatment but to diagnosis. Medical diagnosis deals with physical conditions and usually calls for physical treatment. The diagnostic procedure of Christian Science is mental and spiritual, and calls for spiritual restoration and remedy. There is a sharp line between medical methods and those of Christian Science; neither can ever cross the line. (Ibid, p.127, emphasis added)"

MBE certainly made similar statements in S&H and other writings. The question is: at what point do even Neo CSists "cross the line", therefore, and concede that CS will not work in at least the case they are dealing with. When the thought crosses their mind that they should call the doctor? When they actually do? When they are in the doctor's office?

Again, I think the new world of CS you are trying to portray is easier to discuss than live. The statement of DeWitt John and MBE (except for the stuff you've dug up in the library), lead right back to the road of radical reliance.

During lunch today, I looked at my copy of the book you mentioned. I didn’t read all of chapter 1 of DeWitt John’s book, but I did read page 18, and found nothing there that I would disagree with. On that page, at least, it seems to me that he doesn’t address the issue of the use of “temporary means.” I really don’t know what he would have thought of it.

Regarding Erwin Canham, I remember that when he died I read in his obituary that he died in a hospital. In my eyes at least, that doesn’t at all diminish his stature as a dedicated Christian Scientist.

Spring — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:17:50 GMT

Camille,

It's not just that CSists will not ask details about "error" of all sorts, it's that CS gave me a tool to declare the truth and declare error to be non-existent. Coming from a dysfunctional family I came a across CS at a time when things slowly started to come up. CS helped me to remain in the denial/suppression phase and during that time nothing but the "peaks", once or twice, came up. I remember speaking to a practitioner once on that subject and dealing with it on the basis that in reality it never happened and in reality every person is God's perfect child. Today - and that is after some therapy and counseling and after having allowed as much as possible to surface and having integrated in in my life - the - best intended, I am sure! - CS approach seems ridiculous. In my situation, it made healthy dealing with the situation impossible.

Marion

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:29:59 GMT

<< Camille,
As a young man, Saul (later Paul) watched over the garments (presumably coats and cloaks) of the men who stoned Stephen. He stood by and approved the killing of the first Christian martyr. That was part of how he fulfilled his duties to his faith. Later, Paul spoke of his actions as a defense to show that he had been as deep into anti-Christianity as anyone could be yet had been saved.

For me, I connect to the story as having been very deep into and commited to CS. Yet, the Holy Spirit reached into my heart to save me. By no means is my story anything close to that of Paul's, however, I can relate to the change it represents.

Do Go Be Man
<>< >>

So glad to hear that you haven't been stoning any Christians or Christian Scientists DOGOBE.

I get your point. Your transformation has been radical.
I really wish I could read your conversion testimony somewhere.
Maybe a fictionalized version would protect the innocent..I am interested to know more about the process of the Holy Spirit working in your heart. - camille

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:25:49 GMT

>>

Camille,

That's the type of people I've met in CS, very nice and with very high morality and a deep love of God as they knew Him. Whatever wrong they did - if they did - or whatever compassion etc they did not show were either human weaknesses all of us show to a greater or lesser extent or in striving to live CS as best they could, which of course included to unsee error and see the truth.

Looking back, I did miss the compassion, but with my background I feel I had sought a religion/company of people who supported and strengthened my already existent denial system. And for that CS was perfect.

Marion >>

I appreciate your validation of my perspective on many cs.
I have always remained impressed by the fact that so many of the cs I knew over the years were able to rise to such a high standard and abstain from much materialism has to offer.
Most did not even watch tv or movies that were the least bit vulgar, did not do caffeine, alcohol, smoke, did not use profanity, indugle sensuality.
My husband was like that for the most part. Principia alum Very pure and not attracted to the baser elements of life.
I was always struggling with the darker side due to my tainted childhood. But most of the families I knew were not struggling like I was. I liked the surface friendliness and lightness of my cs acquaintances and I now appreciate what a wonderful thing it is not to be around people all the time who talk about diseases, surgeries and all their travails unsolicited ad naseum....like I am doing on this Forum.

In the medical office or as a therapist in a context of helping it seemed appropriate but I noticed the non-cs world seems very fixated on the body and all its aches and pains. I have met people who are in a constant conversation about their bodies. very boring and tedious to listen to I must admit. Except again to let a need be known. I spent this weekend visiting 3 sick friends and was happy to discuss their problems and see what I could do to help.

The extremes of never speaking 'error' and thus living in a weird state of suspension of human life or the constant rehearsal and obsessive attention to ones self....aches, pains, fat, aging skin, menopause symptoms.....the list I hear goes on.

I have a friend of 37 years. She is dealing with her 85 year old mothers hospitalization for past month. After the 15th call detailing all the minutea of her mothers condition and her upsets and negative doctor episodes. She called to tell me she suddenly realized for 37 years and all my traumas, and dozens of hospitalizations of my son I never called her and complained or made my issues and challenges the topic of conversation when we were together.

I took that as a compliment. I see restraint and watchfulness of conversation topic is sort of an etiquette I learned and it has worked for me.

I always let her know what was going on in my life but never thrust the details on to her...or anyone. I paid Therapists to help me with it, to move through it, to resolve it.

But as you say Marion if you are looking for a support system for denial a cs community would be ideal.
No one from church is ever going to be so intrusive as to ask you about specifics of your challenges.
And ofcourse in my extreme case...no one in the family would either....
camille

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:09:51 GMT

<<
What I do know is that my grandmother and aunt were two role models of morality and decency and Christian qualities for me in contrast of deep darkness and chaos of my home. The Bible and mbe were their sources of inspiration. They may have lacked some of the open heartedness that I longed for but they were way above average than most people I meet in their love of God and mankind.
>>

Camille,

That's the type of people I've met in CS, very nice and with very high morality and a deep love of God as they knew Him. Whatever wrong they did - if they did - or whatever compassion etc they did not show were either human weaknesses all of us show to a greater or lesser extent or in striving to live CS as best they could, which of course included to unsee error and see the truth.

Looking back, I did miss the compassion, but with my background I feel I had sought a religion/company of people who supported and strengthened my already existent denial system. And for that CS was perfect.

Marion

Do_Go_Be_Man — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:00:16 GMT

Camille,

I have much love and respect for my deceased family members and the idea of their eternal damnation is grievous to contemplate.

Yes, it is grievious to contemplate, but also totally out of our hands. We are not required to be perfect in our belief or understanding of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Practising CS does not automatically represent damnation. It misrepresents and underrepresents much of God's word. Like MBE said of the Indians calling a beautiful lake "the smile of the Great Spirit*", however, CSists do profess faith and belief in Christ Jesus. Only the Holy Spirit determines who is and is not saved. The Holy Spirit also determines when. At the instant of death, every truth that someone has learned and denied over a lifetime can suddenly snap into place.

Do Go Be Man
<><

*The Indians caught some glimpses of the underlying reality, when they called a certain beautiful lake "the smile of the Great Spirit." S&H 477:26-27

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:20:09 GMT

<< I am one of the posters who believes that the culture of cs veered off course.

Whether or not the CS culture veered off the course that MBE intended to set, I am convinced that the nature of her writings and interactions with her followers had a lot to do with the course that the CS culture took.

CS is inherently flawed in its view of reality. That flaw will inevitably lead to emotional, spiritual, and physical problems among its followers. >>

Veered off course is not accurate.

To say that the CS culture I grew up in is not consistent with my understanding of CS is a more accurate statement.
I do not really know what the culture was in mbe days or my grandmothers early years.1930's

What I do know is that my grandmother and aunt were two role models of morality and decency and Christian qualities for me in contrast of deep darkness and chaos of my home. The Bible and mbe were their sources of inspiration. They may have lacked some of the open heartedness that I longed for but they were way above average than most people I meet in their love of God and mankind.
Were they misguided theologically? Were they deceived and deceiving? Did they waste their lives and now make their bed in hell for eternity? Is that their reward for their misguided righteousness and faux love of God?
That is the question I am here to ponder. For me this is not a mere intellectual exercise.
I have much love and respect for my deceased family members and the idea of their eternal damnation is grievous to contemplate.

Maybe I am not ready to go any further at this point.
Camille.

Do_Go_Be_Man — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:46:18 GMT

Camille,

I appreciate your frequent Bible references in your posts. I am not sure what you mean by this one?

As a young man, Saul (later Paul) watched over the garments (presumably coats and cloaks) of the men who stoned Stephen. He stood by and approved the killing of the first Christian martyr. That was part of how he fulfilled his duties to his faith. Later, Paul spoke of his actions as a defense to show that he had been as deep into anti-Christianity as anyone could be yet had been saved.

For me, I connect to the story as having been very deep into and commited to CS. Yet, the Holy Spirit reached into my heart to save me. By no means is my story anything close to that of Paul's, however, I can relate to the change it represents.

Do Go Be Man
<><

Spring — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:46:12 GMT

Camille,

I understand it must have been a horrible experience when your son was so sick and you were desperately seeking ANY kind of help for him. I am glad that you did find it and that your son is doing fine! And I agree, that the different way you then chose and the different thinking and questioning that developed from that was doing the separating you from your family, just because you did a few things differently.

Agree that MBE most likely did NOT intend any harm and that her attempts to deliver a healing method could well have aimed at people's well-being. Today's medicine, as much as it has improved, is also helpless with many diseases, and I am sure that, today as then, people do get healed, sometimes where medicine failed, through prayer or through CS prayer. And that is certainly good for the person who is healed thereby.

Never having suffered because of a lack from medical treatment (became a CSist as an adult and the only CS "friends" I had were through CS church) my reason for leaving CS was not healing-related but because I understood the CS doctrine not to be Christian. As MBE in her days' medical world may not have done much harm, she certainly could have noticed the differences between her teaching and bible teachings and thus know that she would misguide people. And if I understand the bible correctly which means that we must accept Jesus Christ as our saviour to get saved, MBE through her teachings is accountable for many people who diligently searched for God not finding Him. I pray that God who the bible again and again describes as a just and merciful God will look to the heart of these misguided people and be very generous!

Comparing her to Hitler again: yes, he had this "Rassenwahn". And he had written it down in a book which I understand few people ever bothered to read. His ideas were so far beyond anybody's imaginations that many people didn't believe he'd actually do that, and his antisemitic attitude was accepted in a generally antisemitic environment (unfortunately, much of Europe was somewhat antisemitic then). But the majority of people never elected him because of his Rassenwahn but in spite of it. They elected him because he promised them jobs during a time of horrible unemployment and poverty, to bring the economy back to its feet, i.e. to solve their most pressing everyday's problems. And that he did - at a very high cost as people would soon notice but then didn't know how to get rid of him because he'd firmly established his totalitarian rule by then.

But what I had meant in my previous mail was not even what Hitler wanted and did but much rather his dedicated followers' reactions after his time had been ended and when they were faced with the horrific things which had happened during his rule and at his command (one official German radio station, imprisonment if you heard foreign stations, very few private cars or telephone, no independent newspapers and the risk of imprisonment for the shortest undesirable comment had kept people remarkably uninformed of what's been going on). Among the reactions was that of denial that these things had never happened (the socalled Auschwitzlüge (lie) - people who say that which now rarely happens will face procecution), or people will claim that Hitler himself had never wanted or ordered these things but that his people had been illoyal to him by doing it without him knowing.

And that latter part is where I'd drawn the link to MBE's teachings and what CSists followed for a long time and where now people say MBE has never meant it to be this way but rather another.

Whatever wrong MBE did, I would not want to put her on the same level as a Hitler or a Stalin - each of them has been guilty of killing more people each year when in power than the number of followers MBE probably ever had. It is just the moment you do have a human system, either you put people first and sacrifice the system in case of need which means that you'll never have a "pure" system, or you sacrifice the people for the system.

Marion

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:04:28 GMT

Linda,

I am reading your book. I look forward to finishing it and integrating your insights.
I am still working through issues.
I confronted many complex issues around mental health these past years and that has been my primary focus.
Finding this site has given me a structure to begin to approach the doctrinal issues and challenge many old assumptions.
It is helpful to me to find the range of opinions and experiences of the posters.
Obviously some of us are still sifting and sorting and others are clear about their positions.
I for one have not conclusively formed definite opinions on many subjects and
topics on this forum.
The clarity and fixedness of the sharing of those who have reached their final verdicts contributes to the inquiry.

I do not feel driven to draw conclusions immediately.
My keen interest in reading so many past and current posts makes it clear to me I have 'unfinished cs business' to use therapy lingo.
My sisters recent death certainly showed me how much is left unfinished.
Exploring these topics will lead me somewhere....hopefully to a completion of some sort.

Camille

tmcl — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:30:36 GMT

Linda,

Apparently this is the bottom line for you and for many others here.
There's really not anything more to discuss, is there.

tmcl

Linda — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:06:05 GMT

I am one of the posters who believes that the culture of cs veered off course.

Whether or not the CS culture veered off the course that MBE intended to set, I am convinced that the nature of her writings and interactions with her followers had a lot to do with the course that the CS culture took. No matter how loving and humane MBE intended her religion and healing method to be, the fact remains that it contains teachings that will frequently lead to the kinds of inadvertent abuse that has been described all over these forums. And, no matter how many letters she wrote privately that show a deeply caring side of her, the fact remains that a significant number of her most trusted students reported -- and spiritually justified -- behaviors and demands she made upon them that would create the harmful CS culture that most of us have experienced.

CS is inherently flawed in its view of reality. That flaw will inevitably lead to emotional, spiritual, and physical problems among its followers.

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:55:04 GMT

. email camillecaswell@hotmail.com.

correction: camillecaswell@yahoo.com

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:54:11 GMT

<< Camille,
Thanks for offering to share your thoughts on self-knowledge with me. I'm not sure how to email you, as I don't have your email address, but another thing that my Christian Science teacher empahsized was that he had often heard Christian Scientists say that self-knowledge in Christian Science means to know oneself as a perfect child of God. But when he researched what Mrs. Eddy actually said about self-knowledge, he found that she didn't mean that at all!
tmcl >>

I always assumed that also. My sincere desire for my sisters to acknowledge and get help for the mental issues led me to study mbe writings to convince them psychology was an option. I was surprised to find many references that I interpreted to be favorable to deep self exploration. email camillecaswell@hotmail.com. Unfortunately my research did not convince my sisters of the value of this approach but it did remove some of the judgements they had about my choice.

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:40:14 GMT

<< Camille,

I am wondering if you had the same passionate stance 'for' CS that you now have agin'it?

Yes, I was quite passionate for CS in that I publicly advocated for it and did an unusual degree of CS evangelism in various activities in which I participated and led. I can relate to Paul's references to holding the garments of those who stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58 & Acts 22:20)

As a Christian, I have experienced and feel that churches are hospitals for sinners, not museums for saints.

Do Go Be Man
<>< >>

DoGoBe
I appreciate your frequent Bible references in your posts. I am not sure what you mean by this one?
I agree with your take on purpose of church.
I wish I had taken the opportunity to seek out another church at that difficult juncture. I know churches exist that embrace people struggling against life challenges. camille

tmcl — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:44:29 GMT

Camille,

A so-called "Christian Science culture" that fosters the painful experiences you've shared in your posts deserves, in my opinion, to die, as we can see happening in the closure of so many branch churches. I am convinced that the many branch churches that are withering and dying on the vine, or that have already closed, are in that condition due to the degree of their espousal of the false CS culture. Personally, I see signs of a a renewal and rebirth for Christian Science everywhere the false CS culture is being jettisoned, but it may take a while for that to be reflected in statistics, since so many churches have so rigidly embraced the false culture and are consequently still in decline. But, in the end, I believe that Christian Science should have the opportunity to stand or fall based on people actually practicing what Mrs. Eddy taught, rather than based on traditions that have departed from her teachings.

Thanks for offering to share your thoughts on self-knowledge with me. I'm not sure how to email you, as I don't have your email address, but another thing that my Christian Science teacher empahsized was that he had often heard Christian Scientists say that self-knowledge in Christian Science means to know oneself as a perfect child of God. But when he researched what Mrs. Eddy actually said about self-knowledge, he found that she didn't mean that at all!

tmcl

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:21:40 GMT

This is pretty much off the subject of this thread, but I think we've wandered every which way here. After reading the last serveral notes about 'radical reliance,' it seems to me the evangelical religious-right may be approaching the same dilemma and may be risking somewhat the same result in the future.

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:18:25 GMT

Camille,

I am wondering if you had the same passionate stance 'for' CS that you now have agin'it?

Yes, I was quite passionate for CS in that I publicly advocated for it and did an unusual degree of CS evangelism in various activities in which I participated and led. I can relate to Paul's references to holding the garments of those who stoned Stephen (Acts 7:58 & Acts 22:20).

Your later post to tmcl made think of a couple of cultural differences:

On our first day of CS class instruction, an elderly lifelong CSist expressed her doubt to me regarding whether she was good enough for class. Granted, I was a bit young though had been a member of TMC for going on ten years and actively studying and practising CS for at least five years longer than that. I was there to build on what I already knew. After more than 60 years in CS, my classmate saw class as a recognition of some spiritual attainment.

As a Christian, I have experienced and feel that churches are hospitals for sinners, not museums for saints.

Do Go Be Man
<><

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:04:22 GMT

TMCL

I am one of the posters who believes that the culture of cs veered off course.
If Christianity is not expressed in love and compassion and serving the needs of others it is as 'tinkling brass'. I am more inclined to think the culture derived from human beings trying to practice cs and follow rules and focused more on hierarchies of spiritual attainment than on love and serving. the split from feelings and the heart occurred somewhere before I was born because it was there from the beginning of my sunday school days.
I recall murmurs of which church members went to the hospital....meaning they failed to live up to the standard..

The culture I grew up in and was surrounded by until 1983 was more legalistic and concerned about 'appearances' of correct practice as defined in peoples interpretations....reflected in periodicals and how people spoke and behaved in the church community.

My husband was cs. His 3 brothers and their wives also. His mother a cs practitioner. my aunt and grandmother cs practitioners. my mother and 4 sisters cs. 3 close cousins cs. not one called to inquire about my son after neurosurgery. Not one ever inquired about his health during his 15 year bout with epilespsy. not one ever inquired about how I was coping with it or feeling.
my aunt worked as a practitoner with me and I deeply appreciated her prayerful support and felt her concern for my son yet there was never any expression of concern for me the human mother struggling and the child suffering. Never any rational conversation about the objective realities of how this predicament was going to play out...

my motherinlaw was condemning in thought and expressed that we were making a big mistake we would regret when my infant son was hospitalized near death.

15 years of hell later my husbands parting words to me when i left to go to cleveland with my son for surgery, "I want you to know I am completely against this."

believe me and the other posters that a damaging wall of shame, denial and self-recrimination surrounded those of us who 'failed' to make our demonstrations.

I ponder how the culture warped cs. I do not conclude the culture derived from mbe.

I don't blame Jesus for the Inquisition, witch burnings, Crusades and other travesties committed in the name of Christ.
MBE often cautions you cannot demonstrate what you don't understand,,,,and emerge gently etc etc. Somewhere in the well intended struggles of 'overccoming' and 'rising above error ' me and apparently a lot of others got detached from ordinary practical realities of daily living and being human.

I think if the medicine of her times had the life-saving potentials of anti-biotics, safe corrective surgical procedures, immunizations of today mbe would have been very tolerant of these choices as 'temporary means".

They were not available in her day. Morphine was and she availed herself of it when physical pain was too much for her to endure. But information about her use of morphine was not available to me until later biographies. so it was hard to plug that into my decisions about my son.
I know from reading your posts that you were not born into CS culture.
Some are referring to the neo-cs culture trying to shift from the emotionally dry and barren landscape of the past.
But clearly a lot of damage has been done that for some of us is extensive.

I cannot imagine that anyone ever tried with more passion and earnest desire to practice cs than myself....A trial by fire of having stood in the face of possible death of a child and potential criminal prosecution for 15 years of daily battle with fear for my son's life and self-doubt. Complicated by the fact that many other healings were occuring during this same time period.

Leaving CS with feelings of dread and despairing I might be cutting my son off from the life-saving prayers of cs family members and practitioners was the most horrible experience of my life. I lived a nightmare is all that I can say.

I can assure you the culture of cs was a major contributing factor.

More horror stories.
Example: After my husbands suicide I moved to a townhouse a few blocks from a cs church.

i felt so in need of spiritual solace that I enrolled my two sons (13 and 15) in Sunday School and attended church for the first time in 7 years.

after the very first sunday I received a call for one sunday school teacher telling me not to bring my son back. He had told the class about his fathers recent suicide and his brain surgery!
she said this was not appropriate for the class and obviously we were not practicing cs.
I know that is hard to believe but I have no reason to makeup something that incredibly unloving and misguided .

that was our first and last Sunday there.

I just thought..WOW this is not where we belong. I had no energy to confront the ss superintendant or board. I knew in my heart this was a reflection of the culture and they would think the same thing even if they might handle it differently.

I never found a heart in any cs church. when i did not have one i did not notice.. when humbled and brought low, knocked down off my loftly spiritually arrogant pedestal by my sons suffering and my travails I found my heart....broken into pieces....and there was no love offered in the cs culture for a failure like me.

But ever the warrior i concluded i was to find God without human fellowship and make my way through the dark night alone..

by that time I held no resentment....a bit of disappointment perhaps but great sorrow for the people of the cs culture. which included most of my living family.

although it was shattered i knew i was further along the road of self-knowledge because at least i had found my heart.

TMCL I appreciate your intelligent and thoughtful contributions. You must have a reason to face the angst and ire of many of us here. Your efforts seem intended to point out the writings which might separate the culture from the teachings.
This is important to me too. I have sifted through a lot of that myself. I found a great many paragraphs supporting psychological inquiry (look up references to self-knowledge). I would be happy to share some of my findings and interpretations with you if you are interested email me. I made attempts to persuade my sisters to get therapy and found support for it in mbe writings thinking that might get them over the radiacal reliance hurdles for mental health.

It is human when faced with so much unnecessary suffering for us to cast about and delve into the Whys and Hows of it all.
I dont see a person to blame for my situation.

I see a culture with a rigid, dogmatic and blind but not ill-intended leadership that inadvertently promoted a retrograde culture and missed about three generations of psychological insight and advancement in the currents of human thought.
camille

tmcl — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:17:53 GMT

Camille wrote:

One part of this culture of 'distancing' derives from the attempt to 'elevate one's thought' above the human scene and hold it there.. I remember admonitions against sympathetic mesmerism. I took that to mean that if you 'feel' empathy or sympathy for someones suffering you are caught in the same 'dream' and cannot help them.

Camille,

I too have heard some Christian Scientists warn against "sympathetic mesmerism," but I know of no place where Mrs. Eddy uses that phrase.

This morning's Lesson Sermon topic was "Love" and it included a passage in Science and Health where Mrs. Eddy says that "if the unselfish affections be lacking, and common sense and common humanity are disregarded, what mental quality remains, with which to evoke healing from the outstretched arm of righteousness?" (S&H p. 365).

The above passage is from the opening pages of the chapter, "Christian Science Practice" in Science and Health. My Christian Science teacher always emphasized that we pay close attention to how Mrs. Eddy begins this chapter on the practice. She discusses the account found in the gospel of Luke (chapter 7), in which Jesus was a guest of Simon the Pharisee when a strange woman came in weeping and anointed Jesus' feet with oil and wiped them with her hair. And Mrs. Eddy goes on to indicate that Christian Science practitioners should emulate this woman in their approach to the practice of healing in Christian Science. She writes:

"On the other hand, do they [Christian Scientists] show their regard for Truth, or Christ, by their genuine repentance, by their broken hearts, expressed by meeknesss and human affection, as did this woman? If so, then it may be said of them, as Jesus said of the unwelcome visitor, that they indeed love much because much is forgiven them." (S&H, p. 364)

"The physician who lacks sympathy for his fellow-being is deficient in human affection, and we have the apostolic warant for asking: 'He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?' Not having this spiritual affection, the physician lacks faith in the the divine Mind and has not that recognition of infinite Love which alone confers the healing power. Such so-called Scientists will strain out gnats, while they swallow the camels of bigoted pedantry." (S&H, p. 366)

Note Mrs. Eddy's use of the words "sympathy" and "human affection" in these passages. Apparently she felt that sympathy for a suffering person was essential for effective spiritual healing.

tmcl

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:08:06 GMT

There is at least one person who thinks I'm motivated by secretly collecting e-mail addresses for my burgeoning spam empire.

By the way DoGoBe.... appreciate your humor on this site. camille

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:05:39 GMT

[/h]Psychologically, I'm not sure any of us hard core types will ever recover. At best, I think we develop accomodations to our past and devices for coping. For example, moderation of emotion is something I pray I could achieve. I tend to be dispassionate and thus often appear angry to people who don't know me well.[/h]

I was very optimistic after a few years of extensive therapy I would someday be 'normal'. 20 yrs post cs and 12 years of therapy later I still haven't reached that place. But my situation was so extreme on so many levels I am now just so very very grateful to be alive and free of the irrational guilt and fear and mostly to have an open heart.

I am an intense personality.
My intensity is a result of my combative and defensive mode of being for so many years. I had and still have angry energy somewhere in my body and psyche that drives my intensity even when I have no conscious anger at others around me.

Fortunately I have some wonderful friends who love me for who and what I am. But like you I still pray to have a more gentle nature. The gladiator persona got me through constant battles for the first 45 years of life. Now I am hoping and praying for a more gentle slope to my life and that a kinder, gentler me may emerge.

I am wondering if you had the same passionate stance 'for' CS that you now have agin'it?
camille

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:51:16 GMT

Camille,

What is the nature of your frustration? Pyschological damage, suffering physically, failure of healings like many of us post? or more religious in nature? What measurable benefits have you noticed so far?

I don't feel like I particularily suffered physically though, as I've mentioned in other posts, lack of adequate treatment did have physical impacts on me. I also don't feel frustration from my own failed healings and didn't start noticing those in others until I left CS. The mental blinders CS provides are wonderful for distracting us from the truth. The words of Amazing Grace certainly ring true -"I once was ... blind, but now I see."

The other words also ring true to me:

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound That saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found...

As a CSist, I enjoyed the melody of Amazing Grace. Hearing words like "wretch", however, I would "declare the truth" of my perfection and thus deny what Jesus has done for me. Now I know what a wretch I am needing the saving Grace of Jesus Christ.

Psychologically, I'm not sure any of us hard core types will ever recover. At best, I think we develop accomodations to our past and devices for coping. For example, moderation of emotion is something I pray I could achieve. I tend to be dispassionate and thus often appear angry to people who don't know me well.

Measurable results? Not sure how to measure it, but posting on a web forum like this and taking a stand for the infallibility of the Bible certainly inspires me to check my facts, which leads me into the Scriptures more often with a less self-centered perspective. Like the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12, I now receive the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so. I don't claim to be at all noble, but I do benefit from being led to Scriptures and digging deeper than I might otherwise.

Do Go Be Man
<><

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:24:50 GMT

Several things motivate me, mostly probably fairly selfish. It provides me an outlet for my frustration with a belief system I once held, supported, and promoted.

What is the nature of your frustration? Pyschological damage, suffering physically, failure of healings like many of us post? or more religious in nature? What measurable benefits have you noticed so far?

camille

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:12:22 GMT

Camille,

what motivates your passionate activism and 1298 posts?

There is at least one person who thinks I'm motivated by secretly collecting e-mail addresses for my burgeoning spam empire.

Several things motivate me, mostly probably fairly selfish. It provides me an outlet for my frustration with a belief system I once held, supported, and promoted. I try to connect with people who have come out and are coming out of CS who are dealing with the same leftovers that I am. I try to connect with people who are at the same stage that I was when I began questioning CS.

In the 80s, I started posting to a Christian BBS (pre-Internet dial-up forum). Though beginning to question CS, my posts reflected straight party line doctrine including long irrelevant quotes from MBE's writings. Some contributors flamed me, others insisted my theology was just Hinduism, and others listened enough to provide relevant references to Scripture. I'm sure that many also prayed for me. As I've said before, Peter Frye and all the other radically and allegedly pro-CS contributors to this forum including "A Scientist" are mere pikers compared to me.

Though it took almost another ten years, the Scriptures overcame my allegiances to CS, MBE, TMC, S&H, etc. As I've also mentioned, one thing I still use from CS class also took hold - study all of the Bible and don't stop at just the citations provided in the CS Lesson-Sermon. Growing in a desire to study Scripture and worship in a Bible-believing church I eventually set off on a path to find such a church.

Who knows what effect this forum and our prayers may have on us over 10, 20, 30 years. Peter Frye may become an internationally known Christian author and evangelist. "A Scientist" might find himself making tents and preaching in the streets of Laredo. I might repent of all my frustrations and become the chairman of the TMC board along with the other 4 remaining CSists.

Do Go Be Man
<><

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:55:02 GMT

<< Camille,

What is your concern about your relatives?[/

Certain of my relatives have their identity so wrapped up in CS that I greatly fear the impact it would have on them to learn about my anti-CS activism.

I've also thought about how knowing who I am would benefit anyone. The only message I feel I have for anyone is to point them to the Bible as God's infallible word. Study it, not counterfeits or texts that profess to illuminate it without directing readers to it. Study it in context including the grammar and history. It's certainly not an original message, but one in which I believe passionately.

Do Go Be Man
<>< >>

I see your point....questioning and/or falling away vs 'anti cs activism' are different in nature and would have a different impact on a dedicated family of csist .. what motivates your passionate activism and 1298 posts?
camille
Camille

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:38:14 GMT
Camille,

What is your concern about your relatives?

I think anyone would agree that my activity on this forum rises far above simply resigning my TMC membership, accepting medical care, and being a Jesus freak. Some might argue that I might be a better Christian witness were I to be more actively open with them. They know I'm a Jesus freak and we do discuss my concerns about CS. I just think they would turn off completely to know the level of my concern and actions. This post will be #1289. That's a lot for them to absorb.

Certain of my relatives have their identity so wrapped up in CS that I greatly fear the impact it would have on them to learn about my anti-CS activism. At this point, it is only out of respect for them that I remain anonymous. Besides, I think once I do start using my real name that it will be even more anti-climatic and meaningless as learning who Deep Throat was. A few people at TMC and from my former local area might remember me, but it's been a long time.

I've also thought about how knowing who I am would benefit anyone. The only message I feel I have for anyone is to point them to the Bible as God's infallible word. Study it, not counterfeits or texts that profess to illuminate it without directing readers to it. Study it in context including the grammar and history. It's certainly not an original message, but one in which I believe passionately.

Do Go Be Man
<><