Gary Renard on forgiveness
HappyMike
by Gary Renard
The purpose of this article is clarification, not defense. It is
written mostly for the people who are personally involved, in order to
correct the phony "controversy" that is based on an absurd article
that was written by an unknown author named Bruce MacDonald, who
claims that I "stole" Pursah's Gospel of Thomas, which is part of
chapter 7 in my second book, Your Immortal Reality: How to Break the
Cycle of Birth and Death. The deliberately slanderous and libelous
title of MacDonald's article is "Gary Renard's Stolen Gospel." This
latest, ludicrous controversy is being championed and promoted by
Robert Perry and the so-called "Circle of Atonement." Robert has a
long track record of attacking other A Course in Miracles teachers,
including Ken Wapnick and myself. For 15 years, Robert has been the
most divisive force in the A Course in Miracles community. His actions
over this long period of time are an insult to everything that A
Course in Miracles stands for.
Let me point out that I feel no need to defend myself. First of all, I
am not a body. And secondly, on a purely practical level, the bond
that exist between my readers and I is such that the likes of Robert
Perry and Bruce MacDonald do not understand it, and they probably
never will. They cannot have an effect on it. Robert Perry has tried
to destroy my career at least 3 times in the last 4 years. It's not
working for him. Maybe if he spent more time developing a real message
instead of attacking other teachers he'd be more popular. His goal is
controversy, mine is clarification.
I used a quote from the Course in 2006 in a response article at that
time. Robert Perry had talked two other Course teachers into ganging
up on me and putting out 3 simultaneous negative articles about my
books. MacDonald actually mentions those scandalous articles in his
article. Rogier Van Vlissingen, the author of, Closing the Circle:
Pursah's Gospel of Thomas and A Course in Miracles, published by O
Books, whose blog I will be relying on heavily in this article because
he knows more about the Gospel of Thomas than I do, recently described
those articles by saying of MacDonald, "Curiously, the author (of the
article, MacDonald) relies once again on the discredited journalistic
drive-by shooting that appeared in the form of a series of articles in
Miracles Magazine a few years ago." And indeed it was a now
discredited journalistic drive-by shooting. Dr. Michael Mirdad, the
author of You're Not Going Crazy, You're Just Waking Up! wrote at the
time about my response article (titled "My Response to the Witch Hunt
that is Currently Going On Among Some in the Course Community") that,
"For the most part, Gary recently offered his detractors, and all
interested parties, a brilliant blow-by-blow defense that exposes many
inconsistencies and un-truths." What those articles were saying about
me was not true, and the article by MacDonald is simply not true. It
is a call for help and a defense against truth. The quote I speak of
from the Course that I used three and a half years ago, and which also
applies here, says, "....those who seek controversy will find it. Yet
those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however,
be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense
against truth in the form of a delaying maneuver." (Clarification of
Terms, page 77.)
As for Robert Perry, his jealousy of me is so severe I think at this
point the only thing that would stop him from trying to attack me
would be if someone drove a wooden stake through his heart. I remember
when I first met him. We were at a Course Conference is Salt Lake
City. I was the keynote speaker. Of course he thought he should be. I
went up to him, shook his hand and introduced myself. His response? He
wouldn't even talk to me. He wanted to have the next hit book about
the Course, and I had it instead. Imagine snubbing a new Course author
who is getting people excited about the Course again (which Robert had
turned many people off about with his grim intellectualism, lack of
humor, and approach that was totally devoid of spiritual experience?)
He's an emotional cripple. I didn't know he had whined like a baby to
someone who had been connected with the publication of my first book,
The Disappearance of the Universe, exclaiming "How could you do this
to me? How could you do this to me?"
At the end of the same Conference I was having a meeting with people
from The Disappearance of the Universe online discussion group. Robert
talked another Course teacher into coming over to the meeting and
asking me in front of everyone if I was "delusional." He thought that
might get me upset and that I'd freak out or something. I kept my cool
so that didn't work for him.
Two years later I was scheduled to speak before the whole group at the
International A Course in Miracles Conference in San Francisco. I had
earned that right because more people enrolled for the Conference due
to my publicity than any other individual speaker. Robert called
people connected with the Conference and threatened to boycott the
Conference if I was allowed to talk! Never mind playing by the rules.
Never mind fairness or human decency. Let's just get Gary. Well, that
didn't work for Robert either. Next year will be my fourth consecutive
Course where I speak to the entire group. But now he's at it again!
MacDonald said at his website that he was "asked" to re-write a
portion of a book he did in the form of his article and to "change its
emphasis." I wonder who it was who asked him to do that? Robert then
posted the article at the Circle of Atonement website at the same time
Mr. MacDonald posted the article at his website. He then linked his
website to the Circle of Atonement. There is no doubt who was the
initiator of all this. It's the same person who always initiates
attacks in the Course Community.
Robert Perry will try to tell you this isn't personal with him. Don't
believe him. He'll try to tell you that he's a "scholar." A scholar?
That's odd. I don't see a PhD next to his name. How honest is that?
As for the content of MacDonald's article, we'll get into the
silliness of it. But first, let me say for the record that I have
never read the translation of The Gospel of Thomas by Patterson and
Meyer that MacDonald erroneously claims I "stole." I've been advised
that I should sue him for slander and libel. That decision has not
been made yet. An apology from him would go a long way toward healing
his mistake. He is not a student or a teacher of A Course in Miracles,
and as far as I know he doesn't claim to be. That's good, because at
least that's one false claim he is not making. However, it also
explains why he doesn't understand Pursah's Gospel of Thomas. It's the
same reason Robert Perry doesn't understand A Course in Miracles. He
can't see the forest through the trees. I teach the big message of the
Course, or the forest. Perry nitpicks the sentences and paragraphs of
it, or
the trees. His approach is intellectual, mine is spiritual. Robert
doesn't get it, and MacDonald doesn't get Pursah for the same reason.
So what do we really know about Bruce MacDonald? What other stupid
claims has he
made in the past? Why is he making these false accusations now? It's
simple. He has an ulterior motive. Read the following two paragraphs
very carefully.
As "MikyE" writes in Rogier's blog on April 29:
"Pursah recommends us to compare her version with the current version
to know which part is omitted and changed, and Meyer and Patterson's
is a most famous translation. That simple fact told me Bruce MacDonald
must have got it twisted. I surveyed MacDonald's other articles to
know what made him misunderstand the
simple fact, and I found his claim that he is a true reincarnation of
St. Thomas and Gary Renard was once Simon Magus. I don't care what he
believes in himself, it's free, but too absurd for me is that he
seriously insists Simon Magus (Gary, he means) made up A Course in
Miracles... Fortunately, that joke made it easy for me to forgive."
Excuse me? Bruce MacDonald has written (conveniently in a different
article than the one in question) that he is the real St. Thomas, and
I was really Simon Magus, and that I made up A Course in Miracles?
Isn't it interesting that neither Perry or MacDonald bothered to
mention that along with their spurious accusations? I don't blame
them. Can you say off the wall? Over the top? Out to lunch? It's very
clear that Jesus dictated A Course in Miracles to Helen Schucman. For
Robert Perry to be endorsing the writings of a man who says otherwise
destroys his credibility with the Course community, and for Bruce
MacDonald to be saying these things should do the same to any
credibility that may have been given to him by any serious student of
the Course.
As for details, I know from reading Rogier's blog that the translation
of Thomas by Patterson and Meyer is the standard, 114 Saying version
of that Gospel. Both MacDonald and Perry lie about Pursah's version of
the Gospel on the home pages of their websites by saying it was
"plagiarism" and "mostly unaltered." That is so far from the truth
it's bizarre. Pursah has heavily edited Thomas. She literally threw
out 44 of the sayings Patterson and Meyer and everyone else used,
saying they were added on later by others, leaving only 70. For anyone
who understands A Course in Miracles, Rogier says in his book that
Pursah's version makes more "intuitive sense." He says that Pursah's
Gospel is the "bridge" between The Gospel of Thomas and A Course in
Miracles. Of course MacDonald and Perry wouldn't see that. How could
they when MacDonald doesn't even study the Course and Perry teaches an
incorrect version of it? Pursah also edited many of the other sayings,
at one point combining two of them that were separate in the other
versions. Rogier, who calls MacDonald's criticism "unfortunate," says
in his blog, which is abridged for this article:
Spring has sprung, and criticism of Gary's work is circulating again,
and once more in connection with the Circle of Atonement. Predictably,
a number of people have come to me in recent days for comment on this
material, because of my own book on the subject - to which this blog
is dedicated. (I am slowly moving my material here, from my Xanga blog
at http://rogierfvv.xanga.com.) New blog address:
http://acimnthomas.blogspot.com/2010/04/gary-in-news-again.html
I have perused the website on MacDonald's book a bit, and it seems to
me that he comes from a very different frame of reference than Gary
does, and it's not clear to me what purpose could possibly be served
by his pretty pointless accusation of plagiarism. Simply put, it is
very hard to be original in these types of translations, and I say
that after following Thomas translations in 4 languages for the past
40 years. You either believe Gary's explanation of how he received the
translated text which is published in his books, or you don't. That
much is a personal decision. I have no truck with any one who chooses
not to believe Gary's story, but it does not overly bother me either.
For me at least, this gratuitous attack on Gary hardly enhances the
credibility of what Mr. MacDonald's book might have to say. On the
most practical level, it simply represents another viewpoint, and if
disbelief in Gary's work is part of that viewpoint, so be it.
Almost every word choice and turn of phrase in the Pursah version
could be traced to one translation or another, and I have most of them
here on my shelf, and have studied those differences in the process of
writing my book. However it was my conclusion at the time of writing
my book, that it was pointless to study a comparison of the Pursah
material with the historical texts, except to become aware of when she
makes deliberate changes, or offers unique and different word choices.
In other words, the informational value is in the deliberate
differences, not in the parts that are the same as, or similar to
other translations. Prior to the appearance of Gary Renard's Your
Immortal Reality, Gary once told me that Pursah's favorite translation
was actually Meyer's own translation, and NOT the one he did with
Patterson. Be that as it may, the controversy seems pretty petty to
me. Either you believe Gary's story or you don't, and the need to pick
an argument with him has little to do with the content of his books.
By the same token, MacDonald's book may contain valuable information
for some people, regardless of the controversy, it does however simply
come from a totally different frame of eference than does the Course.
I see no need to make a fuss over that.
Looking at the Pursah material as Gary has published it, and the way
she frames her historical argument, the state of the text, namely, her
point is that some of the Logia are more corrupted than others. It is
in line with that observation that I would suggest to pay attention to
the informational value of when Pursah chooses to make different
choices than the standard text, and/or different choices in terms of
the translation. The material contribution that the Pursah text makes
in that regard consists of the dismissal of about one third of the
collection which we have in the form of the Nag Hammadi text (which
dated from the 4th century CE), which she declares to be corrupted
beyond all recognition. For the rest of the material she simply thinks
that some of it was transmitted to us relatively unscathed, and in
that respect it makes complete sense that the only possible issue
could be about a word choice here or there, but in some instances she
makes some very interesting edits, which amount to a correction of the
historical Thomas text tradition. Her criticism is entirely focused on
the reliability of the Nag Hammadi text tradition, and not so much on
the translations, although, again, she makes some interesting word
choices here and there.
Aside from the above, which makes sense if you choose to believe it,
and no sense at all if you don't, there is really very little to say
about this matter. From a standpoint of the Course, there is really
nothing else to it, except that it may be another forgiveness
opportunity for some, or simply random noise for others. I would doubt
if it is worth anybody's while to really track down word for word
where every word choice in Pursah's version occurs in the translated
material based on the historical text....
On yet another level, we might keep in mind that the entire Coptic
language, which died out in ca. the 7th century CE, consists of a
couple of hundred books, a few dictionaries, and a couple of hundred
modern scholars arguing over the fine points. So how easy would it be
to come up with yet another original new translation after forty
years? Not very, and sameness and hairsplitting differences tend to
prevail except for some fancy translations which are highly
interpretive. Along those lines, I feel that the Meyer/Patterson
translation is about the most neutral version that's out there, in
other words, if you weren't consciously trying to be unique and
different, you would end up with something along the lines of that
translation. The point is to address the content, and that is what
Pursah's version does, never mind if you agree with it or not. And
again, she states clearly that some of the Logia were pretty much in
tact, so a high degree of correspondence with existing translations is
to be expected. The crux of her argument is about the whole that
emerges with her edits, starting with paring back the collection from
114 to 70/71, and then doing some further edits, some of which are
pretty drastic and thought provoking. She is not trying to fix what
isn't broken, which is exactly the temptation that exists for
translators who have to somehow prove their originality.
Lastly, seen with the Course in mind, the accusation of plagiarism is
a classic ego ploy. The ego is a second stringer by definition, for it
is the thought: "What if I could play God by myself?" And since
projection is the primary defense, it will therefore always accuse
everyone else of plagiarism. Somehow magically believing that this way
it will get away with it, that nobody will notice that it is the very
ego thought itself which was not original at all. This is merely the
archetypical pattern of blaming others for what we secretly accuse
ourselves of, and as experience will show us, projection will not
solve the problem, but it perversely reinforces the cycle of sin,
guilt, and fear, and keeps us in the ego's hell. Once we recognize it
for what it is and instead of defending it, we turn it over to the
Holy Spirit, it becomes instead a step on the way Home to Heaven, a
miracle, that brings us closer to accepting the atonement for
ourselves. Conversely, it is a call for Love, and thus another failed
attempt to hide the self-accusation of utter un-originality of the
ego, and worse, that nothing really happened, that the thought did not
even accomplish anything, which is the essence of Salvation, of
accepting the atonement for ourselves.
Meanwhile, in other news, as seen this morning in my travels in the
Fordham section of the Bronx, I saw on the safety helmet of a
construction worker the following summary:
1 cross
3 nails +
----------
4 given
Of course it's up to us if we want to spend our time with the cross
and the nails or with the forgiveness. (Posted by Rogier on April 21
of this year.)
Gary again: And so we see that the value of Pursah's version lies in
its differences, not in the similarities. And how great are the
similarities? Lucia Espinoza, the author of Spoken Miracles: A
Companion to The Disappearance of the Universe, published by Hay
House, writes about MacDonald's article:
"Most translations of any document into any language are going to be
similar in contents, and even in form. But there are quite a number of
these sayings that are not even close between these two versions
(Pursah vs. Stephen Patterson / Marvin Meyer)... nope. Not the same. I
checked it out myself....This guy is WRONG."
Gary again: And even if these two versions were as similar as
MacDonald pretends (which they are not) it brings up an interesting
question: If one person translated a phrase from the Coptic language
into English and it came out, "Mary had a little lamb," and someone
else translated the same phrase from the Coptic language into English
and it came out, "Mary had a little lamb," is the second translator a
plagiarist? Does anybody really believe that? They're the same phrase!
Dah!
I wonder if Bruce MacDonald is aware of the forgiveness thought
processes in Your Immortal Reality and the lives they have saved? I
wonder if he has a clue about the clarification that Pursah's Gospel
of Thomas brings to people as a bridge between Thomas and A Course in
Miracles? That's highly doubtful.
At a time when you have people masquerading as Course teachers,
passing along any false rumor on the Internet as though it's true, I
call on students of the Course to wake up and start doing the Course
instead of pretending to. I call on Bruce MacDonald and Robert Perry
to apologize to me and take down their slanderous articles from their
websites. I call on Robert Perry to STOP attacking other Course
teachers. Or do you need an official intervention? Just because
American culture has become completely uncivilized, it doesn't mean
the Course community has to go the same route. At the end of the day,
this is all about love and forgiveness. I have more than my share to
forgive, but I will do so.
In closing, I ask, is it really Gary Renard's stolen Gospel? The
answer is no, not at all. Bruce and Robert, the book is called, Your
Immortal Reality, chapter 7 is called, Pursah's Gospel of Thomas, and
unlike your work, people will still be reading it two thousand years
from now.
Carrie
It's like the time Beverly Hutchinson wouldn't list Gary's book(s),
deciding they were NOT true ACIM books (which they are not) and he decided
she had been negatively influenced by his enemies, and wanted an email
campaign started to flood her with emails about it. Don't know what happened
with this but Beverly had already made her decision and didn't plan to get
involved in it further (she actually LIVES the course) So then his next book
came out, saying she hates him because he had murdered her in another
lifetime.
I wrote a response to Gary's post (and others responding to him) on
another ACIM group. I don't even know what group it is, but appaently I'm
part of it, I get emails when someone starts a thread in it. I got the one
by Gary about how unfairly treated he has been, and once again, he is
getting accused of something that is NOT TRUE. I probably should have put
the response here, instead. Not sure if the group I wrote it on is
moderated, but it probably is. And the last group I was on that Robin/Bodhi
was in charge of, he deleted anything I wrote he, personally, didn't agree
with or like. Actually, he might have banned me on that, too.
Maybe I am not deleted and banned on his new group (and will no longer
get emails whenever a new thread is started) Looks like it might be
interesting (the group) I saw some names I recognized. But, I have found out
moderated groups tend to not be SAFE. Well, they are supposedly kept safe
(a certain way) but this just means for the person in charge of moderating
them. Not for those who might have different ideas and opinions. Though I
see Gary's posts are left on (LOL) He might be left on for entertainment
value... Going by the picture (someone doctored up to look like a target
with darts thrown in it) Gary's previously dark hair now seems golden
blonde. Maybe his new image.
-------------------------------------------------------------
from the group:
Reply by starchild 1 hour ago
I get notices in my email of threads that start but don't usually do more
than skim over them. This one got my atention because I have had "dealings"
with Gary, years ago, when his first book came out and he came on the TRC-M
newsgroup and agreed and fought with people (defended it) about it and their
opinions, etc. If I remember right he (and Patrick Miller) came ON the
newsgroup, after posting an exerpt from the book elsewhere, asking for
people's opinions about it... I have this quirk uhere I think people who
write books (and sell them ) give talks (and sometimes get paid for this)
and set themselves up as an expert of some topic should, well LIVE what they
talk about. Practice what they preach.
I was tempted to reapons here now, as most of the others have, and lecture,
point out faults and "this is NOT what ACIM says!" But, is that my place? Is
that ME living what I believe ACIM says?
Is Gary here looking for reinforcement about being harmed, or lectured about
it, or her looking for love? Maybe Peace of Mind?
Have had years of this, in various ways (mainly online). Like the woman who
posts on TRC-M about giving talks on various course topics, who won't write
ON the newsgroup because she doesn't want to be around mean, negative people
(she is obviously SEEING that way). Yet writes/talks about not letting other
people "get" to you in any bad/negative way.
Even Raj, who says he is Jesus,and WROTE ACIM has said there are bad, mean,
evil people in the world we need defense about, and that lack is real, and
people must be asked for money. Even though also saying everything he
says/produces should be given away free (as a giflt).
And Jesus in the bible said it all (way before the course, if one is still
into the idea of time) FORGIVE, "Ask and it is given". Whatever you believe,
you will have, etc.
Seek first the Kingdom (connection to God/Source) and trust and all will be
taken care of perfectly.
Can't tell Gary, or anyone else this. Can't even tell Raj this- who says he
is Jesus, and maybe his main point in life is to help OTHERS learn (to think
for themselves?)
Everyone is a teacher/student. We learn from others. Maybe not in the way we
THINK we will learn, or we should be learning. Like look to someone else as
a role model or "practice what they preach".
I think it was Robin who used to write about Gary's first book and how
wonderful it was, i.e. forgivenesss. Maybe the point of it wasn't to learn
FROM it, from the exact words, but to learn to "forgive" Gary for writing
them and making out he (well his visitors, that came in handy to dump things
on. It wasn't HIM it was Arton and Pursah!) actually had/was learning to
live ACIM. And, then was suitable to set himself up as a teacher for others.
I remember early on, when his first book was out he was a caller on the Hugh
Prather show (supposedly just called in, but it wa set up and announced on
his egroup ahead of teim) Hugh Prather has credentials and was answering
questions people called in about relationship problems. Gary, was supposedly
an unemplolyed musician from Boston/Maine who had strange visitors who told
him this stuff, and after writing it down he destroyed the tapes that were
the only evidence it had happened. Gary was giving people who called in
advice about their relationship problems based on this.
Gary, who had had this happen over 8 years, and never told his wife about
it, keeping it (and the tapes) secret. and, if I have heard correctly, his
wife left him after the book came out. (not gossip, I heard he told about it
at one of his talks). I'm sure if it were me, married to someone who had
lived a lie, and kept this from me for years- this going on when I wasn't
home (off at work) I'd have felt the same way. Yet Gary was answering
questioons from people calling Hugh's show with relationship problems.
Maybe the overall lesson isn't for or about Gary, but for others who
read/hear have contact with him? We can't change another person, we can only
be away of our own thoughts, feelings and beliefs and "am I feeling peaceful
about this?" If not, why...
I recently read something and wrote it down. Not strictly ACIM but where
does ACIM stop and everything else start?
" Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace."
Buddha.
Gary has seemed persecuted, attacked, criticized all along. I remember the
big fuss because Beverly Hutchinson wouldn't list is book(s) in MDC catalog
because she didn't feel they were really ACIM related (and I think she was
right) But, instead of accepting this, being peaceful and trusting about it,
Gary and his group wanted to wage a war with MDC, sending emails about it
and saying "someone had influenced her negatively against him". they wanted
her to come argue about it on his group. I remember Bev (who does quietly
live what ACIM teaches) saying "I made my choice, and they can make theirs"
They had already decided what they WANTED to believe and how they wanted to
act/react to it. (something like that). And just moved on. No need to argue
or fight over it.
Gary seems paranoid and defensive. He has since the start of his ACIM
author/speaker career. WHY, who knows... I think I have (and maybe others)
missed the poiint of this.
IT WASN'T AND NEVER HAS BEEN ABOUT GARY. Or "anyone else" we seem to see
"out there" (which I choose to see I will behold)
Isn't this what ACIM Says?
------------------------------------
Just got the idea of looking at it in another way....
Supposedly if someone "irks" me it is something I should look at in myself.
Going by this, I have quite a few teachers, and I am grateful to them (when
I realize this). Still don't think I would want to hang around with them,
though. And probably the feelling is mutual.
HappyMike
> On Wed, 5 May 2010 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT), HappyMike
>
> <happydrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >My Response to the Latest Absurd Accusations
> >by Gary Renard
>
>
> Deborah (BC)
My study group thought it might be fun to make an opera out of this
and put it on youtube.
Carrie
Oh yeah!
Carrie
> On Wed, 5 May 2010 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT), HappyMike
>
> Deborah (BC)
In the pictures of him I am seeing now, he seems to have golden blonde
hair.
He, himself, is a good chance to practice what others believe ACIM says.
Maybe that's his point in life...
mr bill
>
> read more »
how quaint
demonstrating defensiveness
by claiming to be not defending
while attacking perceived enemies
and being completely clueless
as to his own motives
shit-for-brains in action
:)
Carrie
But, the reader (in this case you) always has a choice in how they see
it, or give attention to it, or not.
Trying to see, and point out faults in others is impossible.
mg weber-c
My Comments on the Latest Gary Renard Controversy."
by Robert Perry
(This article is in part a response to "My Response to the Latest
Absurd Accusations," by Gary Renard, much of which is rather pointedly
directed at me.)
In the end, we get the community we support. In A Course in Miracles,
we have a written document of sublime truth, love, and holiness. It's
up to us, however, to surround that document with a human community
that, to the best of our ability, reflects its lofty principles.
We need to surround it with love and forgiveness, as well as kindness,
respect, and decency. But we also need to surround it with truth.
Unless we care about truth, deeply and collectively, then those other
values won't be around, either. Once truth goes out the window,
discernment is no longer allowed, and then viciousness gets passed off
as kindness, and insanity as sanity, and we have renounced the
mechanism for telling the difference.
Caring about truth means that when someone steps forward with a
questionable claim, we calmly hold that claim up to scrutiny. We don't
castigate and condemn that person. But we don't let the claim go
unchallenged, either. And when someone who carries immense influence
puts out questionable interpretations of the Course, we do the exact
same thing. We never go after the person, but we do weigh the
evidence, in search of the truth.
It may not be immediately apparent why it is absolutely crucial that
we do this. It may even seem like doing this is unspiritual. Yet let's
look at the alternative.
The alternative is to have an unwritten rule that says that anyone can
make any claim and put forth any view, and that these must go
unchallenged. Direct criticism is the ultimate taboo. No matter how
reasoned and neutrally stated the challenge, and no matter how
outlandish the claim being challenged, the simple fact of challenging
it violates that ultimate taboo. And in the face of that violation, we
are forced to abandon our prohibition of direct criticism. Now,
vicious smears, personal insults, untruths, and even incitements to
physical violence become quite appropriate, all because, of course,
direct criticism is always wrong. Truth has gone, and with it have
gone all the rest of the values we cherish.
In such a community, we do more than fail to surround the Course with
a living community reflective of its principles. We actually leave the
canons of civilized society, and descend into chaos. Can you imagine
what would happen if our larger society embraced these values? Imagine
that a company could make any claim it wanted, and no one was allowed
to challenge it. Or that a scientist, politician, or philosopher could
put forth any view, and no one could voice disagreement. Would you
want to live in the resulting society? At that point, would there be
anything that could be called society?
Sadly, I believe that a significant element of our community has
embraced these values when it comes to Gary Renard. We have invited
into our midst someone with a rather incredible claim. But many of us
decided that the truth of that claim didn't matter, that the most
unspiritual thing we could do was evaluate its truthfulness, and that
those who did so were the bad guys. What we didn't realize was that by
setting aside the value of truth, we invited into our midst much more
than we bargained for.
Since then, we as a community have had to turn one blind eye after
another. From the extreme aggressiveness of his response to critics,
to private threats sent to ACIM leaders (I've received a couple
myself), to widely circulated stories of his behavior before and after
workshops, Gary has earned the label he recently touted on his
website: "The bad boy of spirituality." No less than four Course
leaders, representing three of the main Course organizations, have
come forward with public statements about Gary (these include Beverly
Hutchinson of Miracle Distribution Center, and myself and Greg Mackie
of the Circle of Atonement). This is unheard of in the ACIM community.
And many other leaders privately agree with us.
If you hear Gary's response to this, you will hear that we all acted
out of ulterior motives like jealousy. That is the logical fallacy
called ad hominem, where you attack the person, rather than answer his
argument—the opposite of what I advocated above. While it can sway the
undiscerning, it basically signals that you've got nothing. Further,
it is simply not true that my issue here is some personal grudge
toward Gary. A few years ago, I wrote him a warm personal message and
told him that if he ever did the courageous thing and came clean, I
would support him both publicly and privately. (I won't quote his
response.)
Most recently, a man named Bruce MacDonald has brought to light the
fact that the majority of verses in "Pursah's Gospel of Thomas" are
almost exactly the same as a contemporary translation of Thomas from
Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer. (This actually is very similar to
the borrowing from Ken Wapnick that I documented in 2006.) This is a
weighty issue, one that will almost certainly have real-world
repercussions. Gary is in a very difficult position. Not only is it a
legal issue, but it also makes believing in his masters incredibly
difficult, since it was one of those masters that supposedly gave
forth this "original" version of Thomas.
One might think that Gary would do his utmost to sincerely explain
this disturbing evidence. His response, however, is in character. It
is a lengthy exercise in overt character assassination. Strangely,
this is mostly directed a full two steps away from the evidence—
specifically, at me—for asking MacDonald to summarize his evidence in
an article and then providing a link to that article on my website.
I'm not quite sure how disparaging me explains away the evidence.
Clearly, Gary would like you to believe that the evidence is not the
issue here.
His rhetoric is uncorked, with statements like, "He's an emotional
cripple." This rhetoric reaches a new low when, after speaking of "the
bond that exist [sic] between my readers and I [sic]," he says, "the
only thing that would stop [Perry] from trying to attack me would be
if someone drove a wooden stake through his heart." One can only hope
that his bond with his readers isn't such that one of them will decide
to become that "someone." I realize it's just a dumb vampire joke, but
the danger with such careless and excessive rhetoric is that some
disturbed person could act on it. How have we gotten to this place as
a community?
As we know from the Course, such language is not a sin, but as many
have pointed out to me, it certainly is a call for help. And if Gary
did reach out for that help, I am sure he would have many, many loving
friends and supporters who would offer it.
Only after lengthy fireworks, at the very end of his piece, does he
offer a brief explanation for the word-for-word similarity between his
version of Thomas and the Patterson/Meyer translation. He quotes a
friend who says, "Most translations of any document into any language
are going to be similar in contents, and even in form." And then he
gives this example: "If one person translated a phrase from the Coptic
language into English and it came out, 'Mary had a little lamb,' and
someone else translated the same phrase from the Coptic language into
English and it came out, 'Mary had a little lamb,' is the second
translator a plagiarist? Does anybody really believe that? They're the
same phrase! Dah!"
Despite Gary's dismissive attitude, this, of course, is simply not how
it works, as anyone who owns different translations of the Bible
knows. To see this, all you need do is set different translations of
Thomas side by side. Here are three prominent translations of Saying
92:2. Please take a minute and compare them very carefully:
Patterson/Meyer (1992)
Lambdin (1988)
Blatz-NTA (1991)
In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you
asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking
them.
Yet, what you asked me about in former times and which I did not tell
you then, now I do desire to tell, but you do not inquire after it.
...but the things you asked me in those days and I did not tell you
then, now I desire to tell them, but you do not ask about them.
All three translations are presumably accurate, yet they are markedly
different. It's not just the wording that is different, it is also the
ordering (in the first, the reference to the past is at the start; in
the others, it comes later), and the punctuation (one translation is
two sentences, the others are one). Given that, how do we explain the
fact that "Pursah's" version of this saying is exactly the same as
Patterson/Meyer? Below is Saying 92:2 from Your Immortal Reality.
Compare it carefully with the left column in the above table:
In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you
asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking
them. (Your Immortal Reality, p. 169)
Recently, I mentioned to a leading New Testament scholar the
correspondences between Gary's version and the Patterson/Meyer
version, and the first thing he said was, "But the Patterson/Meyer
translation is so distinctive."
Make no mistake—the evidence of plagiarism is the issue here. The fact
that Gary focuses mainly on character assassination and leaves for the
end a weak treatment of the real issue tells you everything you need
to know.
I don't mind Gary's schoolyard insults. However, I do want to set
straight certain stories presented as fact. In the original version of
his piece, he told stories about shaking my hand and me refusing to
speak to him (we've never actually met), about me sending someone into
his discussion group to ask him if he's deluded, and about me whining
"like a baby" to someone connected with the publication of DU, saying,
"How could you do this to me? How could you do this to me?" I had no
idea where he was getting these stories. The leader of a prominent
ACIM organization helped fill in the gap with the second story. He e-
mailed Gary and said (the following paragraphs are from different e-
mails),
I was the Course teacher who came to your meeting in Salt Lake City
and asked you whether it was possible you might be delusional
regarding Arten and Pursah. I want to put on record that I was not put
up to asking the question by Robert Perry, or anyone else. And I would
be grateful if you would issue a correction and not repeat the story
again, as it's just not true.
Please, therefore, send out a correction to that list [the list Gary's
article was initially sent to]. I'm happy for you to quote me. And I
think an apology to Robert Perry would be appropriate, now that you
know the facts.
Gary has written to say he will in fact remove that particular story
from the online version (no word about sending out a correction to his
e-mail list; my comments here will have to serve as that correction).
Tellingly, he said that he had believed the story to be true based not
on physical evidence, but on "Guidance." He adds that this same
Guidance tells him to stand by the rest of the article.
The point of Gary's stories is to prove how spitefully I am willing to
treat him. All I can say is that in place of stories that did not
occur, I have a record of all of my e-mail correspondence with him
over the last six years, and I would happily make every word of it
public. The decency with which he has been treated by me is there for
anyone to see.
One story Gary relates, however, has some truth to it. He speaks of an
international ACIM conference in San Francisco and says, "Robert
called people connected with the Conference and threatened to boycott
the Conference if I was allowed to talk!" Actually, something like
this did happen. It wasn't about Gary not being able to talk, it was
about him addressing the entire audience, and it wasn't me alone. When
you have a community-wide gathering, and only a few big names are
allowed to address the entire audience, that says something about
those few. It's a powerful implied endorsement of them. And in Gary's
case, I don't think it's right to give that kind of endorsement.
Therefore, I, along with two other speakers, indicated we would not
come if he addressed the entire audience. However, it was eventually
agreed that the audience would be informed that the primary speakers
were chosen strictly on the basis of who sold more tickets, and with
that understanding I did end up coming.
I firmly believe in the rightness of the stand I took. I want to be in
a community that stands for truth, and I'm willing to act accordingly.
If it costs me personally, that's fine. That is the only way you get
the community you want. The question is not why I and the other two
speakers took that stand, but why a similar stance hasn't become the
response of our community.
And now let me ask you: If you have read Gary's piece, are you
comfortable with that kind of rhetoric coming from one of the most
high-profile representatives of A Course in Miracles? Are you
comfortable with the specter of plagiarism, and with this "shoot the
messenger" response to compelling evidence of plagiarism? Perhaps you
are tempted to say, "Well, I think his rhetoric is over the top, but
then you attacked him, too. So you've both done the same thing."
Don't you realize that that way lies madness? If simply providing
neutrally toned evidence of falsehood is viewed as inherently an
attack, and even seen as being on a par with vitriolic character
assassination, don't you see where that will lead us as a community?
At that point, truth has become a crime, and in its place we welcome
all manner of falsehood. And we become a laughingstock to the rest of
the world, which understands that truth matters. When The Smoking Gun
website exposed the fiction in James Frey's A Million Little Pieces,
and when journalist Gabriel Sherman exposed the fiction in Herman
Rosenblat's Angel at the Fence, they were viewed, correctly, as having
performed a valued service. As far as I know, no one said "How dare
you expose him!" Can you imagine a society in which, once those
investigators put forth their evidence, they became the villains? In
which the truth of their case didn't matter, only the crime of
presenting it?
Perhaps you still might think that such whistleblowers should hold
their tongues, for the sake of peace and harmony. But, as I said, once
the standard of truth goes, the rest of our higher values go with it,
peace and harmony included. We make a devil's bargain, in which we are
forced to accept ever more compromises of the principles we hold dear.
Truth is the levee that keeps the floodwaters of insanity at bay. When
that levee breaks, you have no control over what comes rushing in. For
an example of this we need look no further than the case at hand.
I envision an ACIM community in which truth really does matter. In
this community, if people come peddling falsehood or spouting poison,
we don't judge their worth and innocence as Sons of God. We treat them
kindly and respectfully, in conscious acknowledgment of their true
nature. But we also evaluate their claims and their behavior. We have
to. And then, as with any salesman selling something we don't want, we
politely say no thanks. There needn't be any malice, but there must be
discernment. And if these people do ask for help, there will be an
abundance of caring friends at their disposal. Such a community would
stand for kindness and sanity. Who of us wouldn't love to be part of a
community like that?
What kind of ACIM community do you want? Whichever you want, you will
vote with your feet. You will shape this community with where you put
your support. In the end, it's in your hands.
(I would very much like to hear your thoughts on my concluding
question. Let's have a conversation about this vital issue. I invite
you to respond below. )
Carrie
going.
Robert Perry still using millions of words to pick things apart and go in
circles and the reader usually ends up with "huh...?" Like what is the point
of all this? (I do, anyway)
Gary, well he can be seen as the bad boy and all the things he's been seen
as (by myself, at times, too) but he also can be seen as someone helping
"the rest of us" remember what WE feel we believe the course says. (in"we"
I mean those seeing Robert and Gary in certain ways and making a big deal of
this)
Who is remembering we don't NEED defense? Let alone forgiveness, and
"giving it to Holy Spirit" and coming from Right Mind/Spirit. Or just saying
"it doesn't really matter, only the Love is Real".
Or just saying "I'm not interested in this".
When Gary and his friends decided Bev Hutchinson from Miracle
Distiburtion Center wasn't listing his DU book in their catalog, saying she
didn't feel it was a "real" ACIM book (and I understand why) they decided
someone had been influencing her in this. Turning her against Gary! And
there should be a campaign to email her and pressure her about it, and
listing his book (their catalog is the biggest ACIM one and best place for
more book sales and "addreditation") They wanted her to come on the group
and discuss it. She simples said no. She had made her choice, and they had
already made up their minds about it (and her and her reasons) and that was
their choice. She was letting it go and moving on. No big deal.
So, Gary's next book said iin it Bev hated him or was mad because in a
previous lifetime he had murdered her! (I didn't read the book, I read
quotes that were posted about this) Which, to me, just reinforced her making
the right decision his books aren't really course related.
Gary and Robert Perry have been going at it for a long time. Robert
Perry still uses more words than anyone needs to (the same as in his course
books and booklets), reading them, it's like "what's the point of this?"
I guess they're both not perfect. And, in a way they are both good
teachers because they give anyone else, who comes across this stuff, a
chance to remember what THEY believe ACIM teaches (and make peaceful
choices about it like Bev did)
Bascially, if they want to do this, and anyone else wants to take
sides and get involved, it's their choice. Or, anyone can remember "the
Peace of God is my One Goal."
Not saying I, myself am perfect (LOL) just my thoughts about it on a
discussion group. Let those who want to be ego-involved in it (including
Gary, Robert and anyone else) do so. It's just really no big deal.
HappyMike
Thank you for calling yourself out as you wrote it, ever showing us
the power of oneness even in deception.
joy80...@gmail.com
oranges...@gmail.com
I felt the wisdom and love and truths emanating from their expressions in the, "DU book." They along with Gary and his books have changed my life forever and for the better. I am a devout student of, "The Course" and i have been led to meet both Gary and Cindy, as well as Kenneth Wapnick only a few years before his leaving this world of form.
I am a mere singer/songwriter and writer of sorts.
People that open themselves up as i do when i write music and lyrics, feel truth. It rings like a bell. And, it melts in your mouth.
I am better than 10 years on since i first read Disappearance of The Universe by Gary Renard.
I was shaken up by parts of it just as was foretold. I argued the case against, "the ego", being like some kind of monster in this world and upsetting my sweet smelling and flowering, "You create your own reality", viewpoint, simply by the thoughts that you think. I laid that book down, in anger, and frustration at least three times!
But, always was i led to pick it back up again. I have now re-read it ten times. 10, mind you!
And always does it seem as though someone snuck into my home and added more paragraphs and ideas. I do,of course, realize this is the nature of our minds which are essentially often weak and lazy. Or is it? Now, im writing too much like Mr. Perry.
All i wanted to really say was if a man his so thirsty that he is about to parish and a map appears before him that leads him to, "the well." The well that embodies the, "precious water", that saves him from certain death and a painful one, indeed, what does it matter that map also had a few other locales that could not be necessarily be confirmed.(Note: Although, never once did i feel i was reading something that had been fabricated, by the Holy Spirit represented by Arten and Pursah and Gary, as well.)
In other words, as always its not about the messenger, it is always about, "the well."
My gratitude also for the comments on here from joy80 and HappyD.
My advice would be also to forgive and move on, to Mr. Perry.
I just saw this is all six years old. Hopefully, all is "well." (Pun Intended)
Gary and Cindy i hope you are both well should you happen to ever see this.
Still up for some songwriting and the like.
LOVE FIRST. EVERYTHING ELSE WILL FOLLOW.- Richard Orange*
* orang...@me.com
10.24.2016
dthomp74
>
> In closing, I ask, is it really Gary Renard's stolen Gospel? The
> answer is no, not at all. Bruce and Robert, the book is called, Your
> Immortal Reality, chapter 7 is called, Pursah's Gospel of Thomas, and
> unlike your work, people will still be reading it two thousand years
> from now.
Well Gary has claimed a whole lot of things about multiple centuries in the future and even more things about what happened in his living room with alleged "ascended masters." They all have one thing in common. No evidence. Oh they have another thing in common, they can all be proven to be false.
Pursah doesn't exist. He (or is that the she?) is a fictional character in Gary's noteworthy and very entertaining FICTIONAL novel. The "Gospel of Thomas" falsely attributed to the fictional character Pursah is a 2nd century document which has been translated and published variously by numerous scholars. Pursah offers nothing other than plagiarism but then again can a non-existent fictional character "offer" anything but a tall tale?
Well I'd say that a fictional character can offer a lot and a lot of truth if that character opens our minds to entertain the TRUTH that only forgiveness actually heals any grievance. Insofar as Gary's fiction has served that end, and it has to some extent, then Gary's fiction is doing God's work.
In that view "it's all true except for the facts." And that is the case with much of the best fiction. The STORY is true even if the facts are not.
Where we need to be careful with pathological liars like Gary Renard and Donald Trump is making the distinction between the "facts" which aren't true and the underlying stories which might very well communicate deeper truths.
So the Gospel of Thomas which almost certainly contains quotes from Jesus of Nazareth from the first century CE presents "truth" and the truth of those words is not impaired regardless of what lies Gary tells about how he came to put those words to paper.
But the truth of those words doesn't spill over to make Gary's lies true!
Doug
