how is this relevant to me now

I’ve had this blog on auto-post for a few weeks now and I’ve found the experience to be rather liberating. While I’ve been checking in to moderate comments (mostly spam-bots), and read other people’s work I’ve done remarkably little with actual content. I’ve got half a dozen posts “in the works” but right now I’m just not feeling inspired and I’m okay with that.

The other evening as I was checking through a former-CS forum, I noticed one of my fellow former-CS bloggers excitedly gleaning inspiration for their blog: Ms. Eddy and plagiarism (I’ve got a multi-post series on that ready to go, but you’ll have to wait a few weeks until the auto-poster gets around to it), and more commentary on the Heywood case (how CS blames the victims).

I found myself having an internal dialogue with myself as I went to bed that night – I’ve been working on several MBE plagiarism posts for a little while now, maybe I should post one today instead of the other post, give my audience what they want to read and then I realized I didn’t really care.* My views on Ms. Eddy’s literary choices aren’t likely to change anyone’s mind. She was a 19th century writer and founder of a dying religion that I no longer participate in. Does it matter where she got her ideas? They no longer apply in my life, is this relevant to me?

I don’t think it is.

There are plenty of places writing and documenting Ms. Eddy’s life and works, there are organizations pushing for change within the church structure and offering support for those who have left CS (admittedly, most of them do lean towards fundamentalist Christian, but there are also some secular-minded former-CS Facebook groups).

I don’t hate Christian Science. I don’t want to bring down TMC, I don’t really care about what it is doing. I don’t care much about Principia either, I’m not going to donate any money regardless of what new policies they enact.

When I started this blog I was going to write about what I was looking for, what I had come from (for context), and where I was going. I feel like somewhere along the way I got turned around and started really focusing on where I had been.

Leaving CS and blogging about it has been like going through the five stages of grief, only instead of happening in an orderly manner, I’ve sort of bounced around between them all at one time or another in the last year.

  1. Denial
  2. Anger
  3. Bargaining
  4. Depression
  5. Acceptance

I spent a fair bit of time in denial about how harmful CS had been in my life. Then I was angry about it – how could any well-educated person buy into it? I bargained with myself, surely it couldn’t have been that bad. I got depressed – everyone keeps finding this blog by googling about CS and death, some of the stuff I’ve read about Ms. Eddy is pretty unpleasant, and how did I not leave before? How could I have been so stupid?

I’m working on acceptance: I was part of a crazy niche religion for 20+ years of my life and had I continued to follow it as I understood it I probably would have died.

Yes, that happened.

While I’m not sure I’ll ever be truly okay with that, I have other things to do (which is why I set up the auto-postings to begin with), for now the regular Monday and occasional Wednesday posts will continue until I decide what I want to do with this blog (or run out of mostly-presentable posts to share).

On one hand, blogging has been helpful as I’ve examined where I’ve come from, but I feel I need to move away from Ms. Eddy’s Wild Ride and continue on my path towards greater kindness (toward both myself and others), or inner okayness, or whatever it is I’m looking for.

Right now, I’d really love a nap.

*Don’t worry, at least one of the posts will be shared. I think it is scheduled for later in July.


3 thoughts on “how is this relevant to me now

  1. mkhuggins says:

    Is S&H still in copyright? I can’t find anything newer than 1934. If it is, I’m probably in trouble.

    Since I am dealing with her lies in both her theology and in her self-promotion as a woman of the apocalypse and predestined to the job, no less, I haven’t dealt with Eddy and plagiarism, though I see it is a huge topic and covered in every single bio. I look forward to someone else commenting on that topic.

    In the scholastic world, we all know the standard in writing a peer reviewed article is to begin with the history of your topic and cover the major contributors who went before; upon whose shoulders you stand. You then critique them, as you explain how you are going to add something they missed to the literature. Then you quote them whenever relevant. That’s why scholarly articles are loaded with footnotes.

    As she did with the word “science” Eddy arrogated all previous accomplishments in metaphysics to herself. It was part of her grandiosity that she actually thought she was the original and no one would ever check up on her claims and probable sources. Or it was a terrible consequence of her lack of education. Had she ever written an essay at a college level, this kind of attribution would be required and she would know it. As was the case with Eddy, ignorance was bliss, and she made up all the rules as she went along, with no clue that she would be judged harshly by history.

    • kat @ kindism says:

      There is the 1910 (final) edition, and a few earlier editions are available online. I’ve found a 1875 (first) edition, and then a slightly later one as well.

      If S&H had been footnoted & accredited the way an academic work would be, there would probably be several hundred pages of foot/end notes and people would probably be shocked and horrified at where her inspiration came from. So much simpler to say GOD TOLD ME SO! 😉

Comments are closed.