 Posted Sunday, January 28, 2007 10:05 PM
|
|
|
|
| Go ahead and post it....I don't think it should be a problem. I think/hope TMC has, er, "evolved" past the days when it would come down hard on anybody who printed something critical. (Can't say the same about Scientology, but that's another cult, er, matter,* er...subject. Your statement, Erol, intrigued me: to read the truth about the universe written by a woman who sometimes sacrificed elegance of style in the interests of saying exactly what she meant, Well, think of what you said! I know the CSists are inclined to think that Eddy lived a life of humility, sacrifice and self-deprivation at Pleasant Hill and Chestnut Hill, but are you saying that part of her "sacrifice" was her diction? And, "to say exactly what she meant"? Or is that, "she meant exactly what she said" Oh, dear...I'm getting awfully confused by the complex profundity** of the Rule of Inversion here. Actually, Eddy made awkward and unnatural efforts for "elegance," sacrificing brevity and clarity in her efforts to appear academic and erudite. *I forgot: "matter" doesn't exist. **Or is it, the profound complexity of the Rule of Inversion?
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:55 PM
|
|
|
|
It's the rule of Confusion rather!
The Wiggin doc is probably a little long for a post. I'll send it to the moderators or anyone else if they need it; otherwise I'll post snippets.
And I'm also dying to post Mrs. Eddy's "How To:" Guide for changing the weather at a whim. In fact, I think I will. . .
Birdstrike
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:11 AM
|
|
|
|
There's an unauthorized bio about MBE and CS that quotes a few of the Wiggin's corrrespondence alluded to. I'll revisit my library and gather the title to share with readers on this forum. I found the examples of his letters harsh and wondered if he was upset with MBE because she stopped using him as her primary editor. He had been wise to advise MBE to remove libelous statements and he did extensively correct her grammar and faulty attributions. So, in that sense, he improved the readability (not necessarily believability) of her drafts and these were reflected in the different S&H editions, I believe up to the late 1890s. I think he also redacted her Miscellaneous writings and some sections of her bio too and her poetry.
I don't know if TMC will allow for future corrections in any other S&H edition that may become available. Certainly the redacting of her tirades about malicious animal magnetism was a needed correction way back when. To my knowledge, TMC has not addressed claims of extensive plagiarism by MBE although one of her biographers (Peel?) acknowledged it did creep into her writings. Plagiarism flies in the face of MBE's claim to direct revelation from God and her view of being Pastor Emeritus who promulgated Truth. However, I don't know enough about MBE and CS to answer whether she viewed her writings as infallible or divinely inspired in their original form. I recollect reading somewhere, (S&H?) that she viewed herself as the receipient of Truth on the analogy of a secretary receiving dictation. She did allow that we are all on the path of perfection in the knowledge and practice of Truth & Love in therms of our mortal mind's grasp of illusion. Am I correct that she did not exempt herself? She, in effect, allowed for human error but in an idealized way acknowledged the absoluteness of Principle. Any clarification would be appreciated.
Peace & goodwill,
Tony
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, September 01, 2009 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
I believe the biography you are referring to is "The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science" by Willa Cather and Georgine Milmine.
I was taught that Mrs. Eddy was not herself the Second Coming, but that either Science & Health, or Christian Science itself was the Second Coming. But also that the Second Coming needed to come through a woman, so she was integral to it. When I took the class History of Christian Science at Principia, we were told that Mrs. Eddy was divinely inspired, but that she had to write so many revisions because describing spiritual truths in human language is not exact, therefore she was always revising her language to better describe what she was trying to get across of her divinely inspired spiritual understanding.
I always found that rather plausible. However, I recently started reading S & H again, after not having read any CS literature for two decades. The reason was, for my father's memorial service, my mother thought it would be nice if we had some quotes from Mrs. Eddy, since Dad was the one raised in CS. I was elected, since although none of our nuclear family is in CS anymore (Mom was raised Presbyterian and has gone back to that, my siblings have all adopted their spouse's religions, i.e.: Catholic, Presbyterian, and none.) I am no longer in the church either, but I'm the only class-taught one, so I was elected to find some nice quotations in S & H to include in his service. The minister Mom found to have the service was very open to my reading from S & H at the service.
Guess what? I couldn't find any! I thought I would find something about how death is not victorious, or something like that, but honestly, all the things I found were depressing or illogical. I didn't want to include anything about denouncing error, or the seven synonyms. I just wanted nice, general quotes. There weren't any. I'll admit, I didn't read it closely, I was skimming and using a concordance. And following up on quotes I vaguely remembered. I only found a couple of very short sentences (like God is Love) which weren't enough for me to actually get up and read aloud. We included them in the printed program.
Ann
|
|
|
|