|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review: ( 3 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
4 of 4 found the following review helpful:
 Inspiring Read Jul 16, 2008
By Peter D. Sievers
This book, with many great references and indisputable evidence regarding its subject has proven to be an indispensable study tool. The great understanding that the author possesses in regards to this subject is evidenced on every page. Many authors who have attempted to write on this subject matter pale in comparison, of this there is ample proof.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
 Useful History; Inferior Metaphysics Feb 14, 2012
By Patrick J. Colliano
There is a certain value in this book. Smillie raises valid points about the increasing lack of gratitude toward Mrs. Eddy and her place in Biblical prophesy. There is also some historical information provided that might be cause for concern among Christian Scientists, such as the languid pace with which the Mother Church moved to provide German translations for Mrs. Eddy's work, which coincided with the time that Hitler usurped the title "Leader" (Der Fuehrer) for himself. Had the Mother Church moved with a more appropriate speed, Mrs. Eddy's own title as "The Leader" might have been secured.
Another troubling instance in the Mother Church's history was the manner in which Adam Dickie's widow was bullied by male members of the executive board into burning her late husband's manuscripts. What could have possibly had them so threatened, that Mrs. Eddy's loyal secretary should not have his writings shared with the world? Tragically, we will never know.
Unfortunately, there is yet another distressing aspect of this book. Smillie's metaphysics might best be described as immature. He insists vehemently that Mrs. Eddy is the "Woman Clothed with the Sun" mentioned in Revelation and the fact that Mrs. Eddy writes in "Science and Health, With Key to the Scriptures," that the "woman in the Apocalypse symbolizes generic man, the spiritual idea of God" seems to bother him not a whit.
Is he not, then, calling Mrs. Eddy a liar? Not just for not supporting his contention that she was the "woman clothed with the sun" mentioned in Revelation, but because, during the infamous Josephine Woodbury suit, when Mrs. Eddy and her students were asked that very question and actually denied this charge. It was apparently necessary to defuse Mrs. Woodbury's accusation of libel.
It is strange to imagine a Leader of a Christian movement, particularly one who teaches that God is Truth, to justify lying, both in print and under oath.
The reconciliation of these two apparently conflicting theories is quite simple, really. Mrs. Eddy told the truth in Science and Health; "the woman...symbolizes generic man." And Mary Baker Eddy, as the most spiritual person alive during her time, realized this identity of man better than anyone else. Hence, while the woman does represent generic man, Mrs. Eddy demonstrated this identity to a greater degree than anyone else.
Another example of bad metaphysics is his "light bulb theory." Rather than all of mankind being equals in the Kingdom or that mankind is simply a collective rather than individuals, Smilie would prefer to hold to the idea that even in our true identity as God's image and likeness, some of us are better than others...an attitude that sadly resembles more mainstream denominations of Christianity: always needing to see ourselves as better than someone else. Has he never read, "Love is impartial and universal in its adaptation and bestowals"?
Shall Love be "impartial and universal in its...bestowals" if some of us, as he suggests, will be as 1000-watt bulbs, while others of us are like 25-watt bulbs?
Perhaps the most telling instance of Smillie's un-Scientific metaphysics is his apparent inability to reconcile what he calls "the mountain peak philosophy" with the idea that God has predestined certain people for their God-given roles. Smillie rejects the idea that God simply imparts Himself in His fullness and glory, leaving those of us with the highest sense of our spiritual identity to discern this first. (This he calls the "highest mountain peak" theory, as it is likened the sun shining upon the highest mountain peaks first.) Why this is so unlike Christian Science is because...in order to believe that God preselects certain people for their prophetic offices, we must adopt a belief that is antithetical to Christian Science; we must believe that God is cognizant of time and of the human situation worldwide and so appoints His chosen ones and the times in which they shall act.
Smillie again seems unable to reconcile the "mountain peak" with the idea of prophecy being fulfilled. In Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy writes, "It is the prerogative of the ever-present, divine Mind, and of thought which is in rapport with this Mind, to know the past, the present, and the future."
Should it not be the prerogative of "thought which is in rapport with this Mind [God]" to know, even centuries in advance, what will transpire in human history, and when those highest ideas (the "mountain peaks") will disclose their revelation? The point here is that prophecy is not at all irreconcilable with the "highest mountain peak" philosophy; thought in tune with Divine Mind will know what will transpire humanly -- prophets have proven this many times over. But, as he does in this book, Smillie utterly rejects one, and glides to conclusions are not at all like Science.
Smillie's emphasis upon the role of Mrs. Eddy and our need to be grateful to her is absolutely laudable. And Christian Scientists who aren't certain of how Mrs. Eddy should be regarded are encouraged to read this book. However, these students are cautioned against adopting Smilie's version of Christian Science. The metaphysics should be gleaned only from Mrs. Eddy's writings and nowhere else.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
A good book if you want to get in trouble Jan 17, 2012
By Laura Alethea
I have wavered back and forth between giving this two stars and three. I am coming down on the side of two stars, because of the seriousness of the part that I disagree with.
I am quite sure this is a "forbidden" book, if only for the author's stance on the third volume of Robert Peel's biography of Mary Baker Eddy, which is so unquestioningly accepted as the standard biography by so many. I would say his analysis is pretty much on the mark.
My opinion on the rest is, Mr. Smillie is right about quite a few things. For instance, his analysis of the root cause of censorship in the CS Church is very good; and equally applies, in my opinion, to what is going on in the United States today, with the weird SELF-censorship that makes people not discuss anything, not say anything controversial, etc.; -- this thing that hangs over this country like a plague-ridden fog, and which is, actually, a spiritual phenomenon.
I particularly appreciated his recounting of the incident about the man who had expressed a disagreement with "The Church" who suddenly found himself completely cut off from everybody -- his phone didn't even ring -- and the experiment he tried, and its result. Those of us who have experienced such phenomena will understand how Mr. Smillie reached the conclusion he did. Those who have not, should not dismiss it lightly.
I do NOT agree with the author's conclusions (or rather hearsay) regarding Edward Kimball, and quite frankly, I do not believe that business [mostly students of a certain teacher] are claiming about the packet of papers, which the author obviously does believe.
The usual caveat applies: The reader should test all statements any author makes in regard to interpreting Christian Science metaphysics and what Mary Baker Eddy says about herself, against what she says in Science and Health. If you are a Christian Scientist, it would certainly be your responsibility to determine whether or not Mr. Smillie's "take" on such subjects as "the 2nd Degree" and how it relates to Mrs. Eddy (or anyone) is correct metaphysics. (See S&H pp. 115-116 for starters.) Also, the Manual requirements under the section regarding "Incorrect Literature" place the responsibility directly upon the individual member, including the responsibility to determine what spirit an article or book was written in.
Or you could be a good little "Catholic" and go ask the Board....
|
| | |
|
|
