 Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:05 PM
|
|
|
|
I would think that first hand evidence of the event in question would trump such later recollections.
True (and I knew you would say this ). This isn't the first time you have questioned the memory of one of MBE's closest followers. From what you have written regarding the information you have found in the MBE Library, it sounds like a great deal of the authorized literature put out by the CS church, and other unauthorized literature (e.g. Dickey's memoirs) written by MBE's closest followers and hand picked students, is full of statements and stories that misrepresent MBE and the religion she taught. The misrepresentations seem so widespread that that they suggest all kinds of unhealthy possibilities. A few might include:
-- There was a conspiracy by MBE's early followers to misrepresent MBE and her teachings.
-- MBE"s inner circle of students was basically dilusional about her, making her larger than she intended to be and creating all kinds of myths about her.
-- MBE presented herself differently to different people and allowed people to believe the myths they created about her
There are other possibilities, but you get the idea. I find it hard to believe that MBE's inner circle of followers could be SO wrong (or, perhaps, deceitful) when they loved MBE and the CS Movement. And I see no reason for the CS Church to misreprent her so badly, as you suggest they have in authorized literature like the We Knew Mary Baker Eddy series. I don't see what the Church would have to gain from this.
Please help me out here if there's a good explanation.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Some of what is being discussed here strikes me as almost on a level with the Mormons suddenly saying that Joseph Smith didn't really find the gold plates, but they are willing to stick with what Smith said they taught anyway.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Linda,
I object to some of the sweeping statements about my views that are cropping up in recent posts. For example, I don’t recall having ever said anything negative about Dickey’s Memoirs, a copy of which I purchased from the MBE Library, and which I enjoyed reading. In the final analysis though, facts are facts, and I am certainly not surprised that some here will interpret some of these facts differently than I do. I think it is important to realize that significant numbers of Christian Scientists are being increasingly exposed to a more complete set of facts regarding Mary Baker Eddy and the history of the Christian Science movement. I feel that this is gradually leading to changes in the outlook and practices of Christian Scientists and will continue to do so.
Linda, I personally do think that The Mother Church did attempt for a number of decades to present to the public a one-dimensional portrait of Mrs. Eddy’s life and views. That, in my opinion, began to break down as Robert Peel published his biographical trilogy on Mrs. Eddy’s life. And, as I see it, that process became complete when TMC’s archives was opened to the public in the MBE Library. Now, no one has to take another’s word on matters of documentary evidence. They are free to look for themselves and to formulate any interpretation of the evidence that they want. I realize that there are those on these forums, who, no matter what historical facts are presented about MBE and the history of CS, will likely be predisposed to interpret them in a negative light, whereas dedicated Christian Scientists will likely be predisposed to interpret those same facts in more positive ways. I guess time will sort it all out.
I want to share a few quotes from biographers of MBE – Peel and Gottschalk.
Peel says this about reminiscences written about MBE:
“…these varying and often contradictory accounts, sometimes written many years after the event… History has been poorly served by some of [Eddy’s] admirers, as well as her detractors, through the biographical or doctrinal deductions they have drawn from such reminiscences. (Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority, page 467.)
Gottschalk writes:
“It is not surprising that some of Mrs. Eddy’s greatest admirers and most devoted followers should have written accounts of her which were one-dimensional and in some cases positively distorted.” (The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life, page 164.)
Gottschalk also writes in his biography of MBE:
[Eddy’s] fundamental approach was the opposite of fanaticism, whether reflected in her followers’ sometimes militant efforts to oppose enactment of laws limiting spiritual healing practice or in the judgmental stance they sometimes assumed toward one another. Whereas some Christian Scientists could become bitterly critical of church members who opted for medical care, their judgment ran counter to Eddy’s own. (Rolling Away the Stone, page 348.)
In discussing Mrs. Eddy’s use of morphine, Gottschalk writes:
“In this as in other matters, Eddy proved more liberal than many of her more hard-line followers. Her advice to them on a broad range of issues was to go ‘from extremes to intermediate’ – to attain a moderation that she saw as deeply Christian…” (Rolling Away the Stone, page 350.)
Regarding the Manual, I wanted to mention that the way it evolved, as described in my previous post, was hardly a secret in Mrs. Eddy’s time, and Christian Scientists were certainly not kept in the dark about the manner of its evolution.
tmcl
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:53 PM
|
|
|
|
TMCL,
I object to some of the sweeping statements about my views that are cropping up in recent posts.
I hope you did not object to my last post. I think, however, that you understand that the CS movement you describe is significantly different than the one I (and others on this forum) grew up in, studied, and lived.
So much of what you describe would have been considered quite heretical in our time. I studied MBE's writings as primary sources and sought out other works such as the biographies as well. The conclusions I reached from such studies were solidly supported or represented agreement with the most learned CS scholars of the time. They traced their CS lineage directly to MBE in some cases and to her students in many other cases. Many of the people with whom I associated were editors of or were published in the publications, served in TMC leadership positions, were CS teachers and lecturers, and otherwise represented the mainstream of CS. Some of my former associates still serve in the highest levels at TMC.
Sorry, but from these discussions I can only conclude there is or was a vast disconnect, misrepresentation, or conspiracy. As I've stipulated many times, however, I have always distinguished the teachings, practice, and culture of CS from each other. None necessarily represent the others.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 5:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Do Go wrote:
So much of what you describe would have been considered quite heretical in our time.
Do Go,
Woud you consider Mrs. Eddy's own statements about CS nursing facilities that began this thread to be in that category?
tmcl
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:25 PM
|
|
|
|
tmcl,
Woud you consider Mrs. Eddy's own statements about CS nursing facilities that began this thread to be in that category?
I held my tongue at the beginning of this thread because I wasn't quite sure how I could contribute to it. I'm a context kind of guy. The ellipses in the original message bothered me and still do.
You've provided parts of three sentences written one week late in MBE's life. As fragments from a letter compared to MBE's total body of work, I consider them as having the appearence of CS heresy (that is, contradictory to the rest of her body of work). I'd have to see the full context to be more definitive in my opinion.
Like you, I believe MBE held far greater tolerance and respect for the medical profession than CS culture represents. Had those fragments been attributed to an unknown CSist, however, they would likely have been considered CS heresy by the majority of CSists in my time including me.
Sorry to provide such a weasel-worded response.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Do Go,
I certainly am all for context when considering documents. But the reasons I provided "fragments" from the letters is the fact that all of MBE's letters are under copyright protection with permission having to be obtained to reproduce them. So I am very concerned to post here only the essential parts of what are often longer letters that sometimes cover more than one topic. I post the least portion of the letters that I can and still accurately convey Mrs. Eddy's meaning without violating the "fair use" rule in copyright law. If I posted more of these letters, I think Linda would have every right to delete them as a potential violation of copyright.
However, the entire letters are available to anyone from the MBE Library, so more context is certainly available to anyone who wants to get it.
tmcl
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:48 PM
|
|
|
|
I object to some of the sweeping statements about my views that are cropping up in recent posts.
tmcl,
Sorry -- no offense intended. I was just trying to convey how different the CS you present is from the CS that my generation grew up with. Do Go summed it up with his statement that "So much of what you describe would have been considered quite heretical in our time."
As I have said, the CS culture that you describe is more rational and humane than the CS culture that the rest of us experienced (and I'm talking about the CS culture and practice described to me by both young and old CSists and former CSists from all over the country -- these people's experiences are surprisingly consistent).
I am delighted that Dickey's memoirs and other formally supressed materials are now available at the MBE Library. That represents a HUGE change; when I first encountered Dickey's memoirs in about 1998, they were only available through "dissident" Christian Scientist sources -- people who were going against the CS Church to make them available. A lot of materials that are now available were suppressed until very recently. I'm not judging here -- I'm just telling you how things were. My generation and every other generation until now was basically told what we should read and what we should not read -- and what we "should not read" was anything that was not authorized by the CS Church, even if it was written by Mrs. Eddys followers. And the "should not read" materials were hard to find even if one had the courage to defy the CS Church by reading them.
It can only be a good thing that more information has become available about MBE and the early days of the CS movement. This will allow people to make an informed decision either for or against involvement with CS.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Since most of the Field in the decades following Mrs. Eddy's death had no access to her personal letters, or obscure writings, it seems logical that the movement followed the best understanding of the published works she instructed the people to use in teaching and healing. And...statements in those works are contradictory. She says, for example, in Sect 23 of the Manual, "If a member of this church has a patient whom he does not heal, and whose case he can not fully diagnose, he may consult with an MD on the anatomy involved." Now, she does not say that the MD should treat the patient. She seems to be implying that this consultation would enlighten the practitioner of CS to better continue the Scientific healing. And it seems to totally contradict her many passages instructing the patient to turn thought away from the body and the testimony of the material senses.
However, on p. 169 of S&H, she states "If we understand the control of mind over body, we should put no faith in material means." and on p. 167 "It is not wise to take a halting and halfway position or to expect to work equally with Spirit and matter, Truth and error." So, understanding that to mean that CS healing and material means don't mix, I suppose the follower was left to choose. I can understand why radical reliance became the ideal, or the goal to work toward. It seems clear that, although MBE acknowledged that we have not reached pure understanding yet, it is certainly the end to which she believed we should aspire. She made it clear that the practice of CS involved demonstration. I imagine her followers were simply trying to do just that.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:52 AM
|
|
|
| | |