A Course in Miracles

[Daniel]

That's what I've been telling myself after reading a brief history of the Course.....here:

http://www.execulink.com/~dthomp75/2...#_Toc159767772

This is the site that has the urtext in PDF format. Here is an informative passage.

The “personal material” which was later, and probably correctly removed from the Course, deals extensively with the difficulties Bill and Helen had with each other as well as with the Course. Bill’s tendency to be a “professor who refuses to profess” and withdraw from his assignment is dealt with, as is Helen’s reluctance to do as she’s asked by the Voice, which is to “help Bill” with “Bill’s better idea.”

Toward the end of the scribing, Helen and Bill had increasing difficulty collaborating, and some sense of the dynamics is offered by Kenneth Wapnick in his book Absence from Felicity whose title describes the situation he found when he met them in 1973 and began to help them get the material ready for printing.

Bill Thetford would never be the “professor” of the Course which the dictation clearly calls on him to be, nor would he ever fully exercise the role of “editor” he is assigned. Helen Schucman, whom Ken Wapnick described as a “compulsive” editor, took over the editing role and by her own admission “wanted to change everything” and proceeded to change a great deal. While she also noted that Thetford “wanted to change nothing” she not only failed to “help him” in his role, as she was repeatedly asked, but proceeded to actively obstruct him by making changes herself, changes the Voice specifically stated were Thetford’s responsibility and not hers.

My earlier musings speculated on Thetford's internalized homophobia as reason for the references to sex and homosexuality being edited out. Seeing that the urtext is the third document the link gives a complete history of editions), it is highly likely that Thetford intended the references to sex and homosexuality to be included in the final product. It was after this edtion that he seemingly gave up editorial control....or rather....did not exercise it. The author of the article quoted above suggests that Schucman took it upon herself to edit the Course, and found the beginning chapter's conversational tone at odds with the Voice's latter expression.

So much for talking outloud. Sorry Bill. My apologies.

Just goes to show: you have to weight a good deal of information before making a conclusion. And I think I have more to do on this issue.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

suggests that Schucman took it upon herself to edit the Course, and found the beginning chapter's conversational tone at odds with the Voice's latter expression.

And that's exactly the impression I felt from it's "conversational tone." Despite the blinding logic of its truth, I found it hard to accept from an authoritative point of view, ie Jesus. And for a free thinker like me, it's still somewhat disturbing to realize.

It was as though I wanted to accept it from an authoritative view, rather than from a 'hey this just makes sense' point of view. It also comes back to my own previous definition/idea of Jesus.

But the whole point is that he is God AND human, and was trying to relay this same truth to the rest of us, even way back when. So why wouldn't he be "conversational" in expressing that truth now?

Then again, why am I still asking the question? Even if it came from "Satan," if it's true, does it matter?

Which brings us back to it for the sake of curiosity. Since it is true (I'm a witness), why wouldn't it be Jesus?

Or perhaps better yet, and according to the story of Jesus, of course it would be Jesus.


...?

[Daniel]

Emproph- Strangely enought, the provenance of the Course has never been an issue for me. One way of explaining this is that I've always been drawn to the ideas expressed in it, rather than the 'person' saying them. They resonate with all that I've learned and experienced with Buddhism and Buddhist meditation practice. However, if I had come straight to it from being the Pentacostal that I was, I might be singing a different tune.

One question comes to mind. Why do you think conservatives find it so threatening?