Comments on: Dubious Murray reference in proposed Priniciples and Purposes

By: Jaume

Jaume — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:28:32 +0000

Both quotes are dubious, but since neither Dávid nor Murray are explicitly mentioned, we can safely assume that the “quotes” are actually the product of our “collective wisdom” (which they are, in a way, as most of us assumed those sentences as valid historical presentations of our faith(s)), and therefore I see no major problem with including them in the document, as long as the names of their alleged authors are not included.

By: Eric Posa

Eric Posa — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:40:14 +0000

["Embracing a good myth"] hardly extends to historical figures who are putatively important to our formation.

Why yes, attributing a dubious quote to Murray would be just as bad as, say, spreading the dubious rumor that Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the church door (when he may have just mailed them to his archbishop). Of course, no one would consider telling that suspicious story of Lutheranism’s formative historical figure as straight fact. :)

The sarcasm is meant only as a good-natured tease. More to the point, though, while it’s good for us to raise the question of this quote’s historical accuracy–and I’m glad you’re raising it, Scott; I, too, once tried unsuccessfully to track the quote’s origin–I’m less bothered by its inclusion here, even if someone proved tomorrow that Henry Cheetham misquoted it. It’s as good a brief expression of Universalism as I know, whether or not it originates w/ Murray (an issue on which the bylaws amendment remains mercifully silent), so I think it’s useful here.

Though your point about “Murray’s” quote being “an OK devotional slogan” raises another question about the bylaws proposal–there’s a lot of devotional language in it. For example, setting the “hope and courage” line aside, there’s this striking passage:

Capable of both good and evil, at times we are in need of forgiveness and reconciliation. When we fall short of living up to this covenant, we will begin again in love, repair the relationship, and recommit to the promises we have made

While I love seeing UUs acknowledging our human brokenness and recommiting to ourcovenants when we fall short, I’m really surprised to see such language in a bylaws statement. Generally, I agree that the proposal is OK–neither fabulous nor horrid–but far better than the earlier draft. I’m just not sure whether I’m expected to recite it from the pulpit, or quote it in my report to the annual congregational meeting. (Probably I’ll do neither.)

By: Scott Wells

Scott Wells — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 04:42:46 +0000

It hardly extends to historical figures who are putatively important to our formation.

By: Pattrick McLaughlin

Pattrick McLaughlin — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 04:20:26 +0000

Eh. This is religion; a bit of embracing a good myth is sort of par for the course, no?

By: Steve Caldwell

Steve Caldwell — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:39:41 +0000

I don’t know if the quote comes from the “historical” John Murray or the “mytho-legendary” John Murray.

But it’s prominently displayed on a brass plaque in the main building at Murray Grove in the Fireside Room in the main lodge.

Although it’s too small to read, you can see the plaque on the brick wall above the fireplace:

http://www.murraygrove.org/images/stephsbridalshower001.jpg

By: Steven R

Steven R — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:24:06 +0000

Yes, it is much improved – much of the legal jargon is gone.
As for the Murray quote, the David quote might not be much earlier either… oh well….