Contributors

Monday, January 20, 2014


36 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was curious where this quote came from, so I did some digging. Every link I found—such as this one—said it was from a sermon given on August 11, 1957 named "Conquering Self-Centeredness". That speech can be found here.

Small problem. I can't find that quote anywhere. I tried searching for "persistent", "urgent", "doing", "others". It's just not there.

I did find two different versions of lead in statements:

“Light has come into the world, and every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”
from here

No part of that quote is in that speech.

Then there's this version:

"An Individual has not started living fully until they can rise above the narrow confines of individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of humanity. Every person must decide at some point, whether they will walk in light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment: 'Life's most persistent and urgent question is, what are you doing for others?'"
from here

This one has the advantage of actually using something from the actual speech:

An individual has not begun to live until he can rise above the narrow horizons of his particular individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. And this is one of the big problems of life, that so many people never quite get to the point of rising above self. And so they end up the tragic victims of self-centeredness. They end up the victims of distorted and disrupted personality.

Bottom line: It looks like the quote is a fake. Is anyone else as surprised (NOT!) as I am?

Anonymous said...

I did find something interesting in that sermon:

Now the consequences, the disruptive effects of such self-centeredness, such egocentric desires, are tragic. And we see these every day. At first, it leads to frustration and disillusionment and unhappiness at many points. For usually when people are self-centered, they are self-centered because they are seeking attention, they want to be admired and this is the way they set out to do it. But in the process, because of their self-centeredness, they are not admired; they are mawkish and people don’t want to be bothered with them. And so the very thing they seek, they never get. And they end up frustrated and unhappy and disillusioned.

I’m sure you have seen people in life who are so desirous of gaining attention that if they cannot have and gain attention through normal channels, through normal social channels, they will gain it through anti-social means. There are those people who are so desirous of gaining attention that if everybody says, ‘Yes,” they automatically say, “No,” in order to be seen and to be heard. They are so self-centered that they must gain attention and they must be seen in order to survive. They want to be admired and in their quest for admiration, they don’t gain it and in their failure to gain it, they become frustrated and bewildered and disillusioned.

Also, it leads to extreme sensitiveness. The individual who is self-centered, the individual who is egocentric ends up being very sensitive, a very touchy person. And that is one of the tragic effects of a self-centered attitude, that it leads to a very sensitive and touchy response toward the universe. These are the people you have to handle with kid gloves because they are touchy, they are sensitive. And they are sensitive because they are self-centered. They are too absorbed in self and anything gets them off, anything makes them angry. Anything makes them feel that people are looking over them because of a tragic self-centeredness. That even leads to the point that the individual is not capable of facing trouble and the hard moments of life. One can become so self-centered, so egocentric that when the hard and difficult moments of life come, he cannot face them because he’s too centered in himself. These are the people who cannot face disappointments. These are the people who cannot face being defeated. These are the people who cannot face being criticized. These are the people who cannot face these many experiences of life which inevitably come because they are too centered in themselves. In time, somebody criticizes them, time somebody says something about them that they don’t like too well, time they are disappointed, time they are defeated, even in a little game, they end up broken-hearted. They can’t stand up under it because they are centered in self.

Then, finally, it can become so morbid that it rises to ominous proportions and leads to a tragic sense of persecution. There are persons who come to the point that they are so self-centered that they end up with a persecution complex and the end result is insanity. They end up thinking that the universe stands against them, that everybody is against them. They are turning around within themselves. They are little solar systems within themselves and they can’t see beyond that. And as a result of their failure to get out of self, they end up with a persecution complex and sometimes madness and insanity. These are some of the effects of self-centeredness.

Mark Ward said...

Yes, very interesting indeed. See any of yourself in there, NMN? Or not?

As far as the quote goes...

http://www.thekingcenter.org/node/542

You can also reference the book The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Second Edition
edited by Coretta Scott King

Page 17

Another quote from that speech...

And I’m so glad that the new science did something to dampen our arrogant spirits. For a long time, man felt that he was the center of the universe and all of his science had given him that. All of the days in the past he came up under what was known as the geocentric theory: the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around the earth. Then came Copernicus and Galileo and others, said that the sun is the center, the heliocentric theory came into being. And that reminded us somehow that we are dependent on something. We are not just at the center of this universe. We are only at the center to the extent that we give ourselves and our allegiance to God Almighty.

And I’m so glad that the new science came into being to dampen our arrogance. It says to us that our earthly planet is a dependent planet; it is a small planet in the orbits of this universe. The sun is the center of this universe, that man must look beyond himself to discover his significance. And that does something to each of us so that we can see when we have faith in God that we have nothing to boast about, we have nothing to be arrogant about but we live with a humility that keeps us going.





Anonymous said...

As far as the quote goes...

http://www.thekingcenter.org/node/542


That doesn't give the source of the quote.

Where is it from?

You can also reference the book The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Second Edition
edited by Coretta Scott King

Page 17


books.google.com has the book available. I was able to look up that page there. Again, that statement is listed without attribution.

Where is it from?

Mark Ward said...

It's from Dr. King. Perhaps he ad libbed at the speech or wrote it elsewhere. Certainly, he was known for not sticking to his prepared remarks. Either way, it's not a fake quote as I verified with both of the above sources. Are you calling into question the King Center or Corretta Scott King?

Perhaps you are on to something here, though, NMN. I think the King family and his minions are conspiring to (gasp!) HELP PEOPLE!! Next step is internment camps:)

GuardDuck said...

Are you calling into question the King Center or Corretta Scott King?

They still need to source a quote from Dr. King.

Mark Ward said...

Feel free to contact them...

http://www.thekingcenter.org/contact-us

Anonymous said...

Feel free to contact them

Why don't you? After all, you are the one promoting it.

Mark Ward said...

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly, NMN. A book which I own written by Martin Luther King and edited by his wife has a fake quote in it. He is required to cite himself. Is that what you are saying?

I stand by the quote based on the source. If you think it's fake, be my guest and attempt to prove otherwise.

Anonymous said...

written by Martin Luther King

Wrong. Not Jr., III. Those are two different people.

You obviously checked out the link to the sermon. Perhaps you noticed that it has the earmarks of being a transcript of a recording, in that it includes obvious off-the-cuff remarks. Some of the sources include a sentence that is part of the sermon. Multiple sources claim it is from that sermon. Yet that quote is clearly not on that transcript.

Why the discrepancy? Are you suggesting Stanford University edited the transcript just to remove that quote?

I don't know why there is a discrepancy. All I know is that in checking the claimed sermon's transcript, it is not there.

Mark Ward said...

The Words of Martin Luther King Jr was not written by Martin Luther King JR?

The book description...

Created as a living memorial to the philosophies and ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., this essential volume includes more than 120 quotations from the greatest civil rights leader’s speeches, sermons, and writings selected and introduced by Coretta Scott King.

Have you considered that your research might be in error? That it is not from that speech? Considering the copyright of the book is 1958 and after, that appears to be the case since you insist the speech is wrong attributed to the year 1957. Just because the Internet says it's from that speech (or a speech at all) doesn't mean that it is or that the speech is even available digitally.

Ironic that you are accusing me of falling victim to internet myths when you are doing just that. I trust a book over an internet source. You may have to go to a library and look it up. Or a quick phone callto the King Institute which houses his original documents could help you out.

Of course, the larger issue here is why you got started down this path. You made an accusation that it's fake and now you can't back that up. You obviously spent some time looking into this. For what purpose? I suspect that it's the usual "prove me wrong" obsession driven by deep insecurity. Or is it that you don't like the idea of such a "dangerous" quote like this being spread around. Again, why?

Anonymous said...

Have you considered that your research might be in error? That it is not from that speech?

Yes. So if you know where it's from, why don't you post the correct source?

Considering the copyright of the book is 1958 and after…

And again, you are wrong. Here is the copyright information:

--------------------

The words of Martin Luther King, Jr., are selected from his speeches, sermons, and published works.

Copyright © 1958,1963, 1964, 1967 by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Copyright © 1960, 1968 Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Copyright © 1964 by the Nobel Foundation
Excerpts from String in Love copyright © 1963 by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reprinted by permission of Joan Daves
Excerpts from Why We Can’t Wait copyright © 1963 by Martin Luther King, Jr.; excerpts from Stride Toward Freedom: The Mongomery Story copyright © 1958 by Martin Luther King, Jr.; excerpts from Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community copyright © 1967 by Martin Luther King, Jr.; excerpts from The Trumpet of Conscience copyright © 1967 by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Reprinted by permission of Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

Selection and compilation of quotations and illustrations
copyright © 1983, 1987, 1996 Newmarket Press.
Introduction copyright © 1983, 1987 Coretta Scott King



Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
King, Martin Luther.
The words of Martin Luther King, Jr.

I. King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006 II. Title.
E185.97.K5A25 1984 323.4’092’4 83-17306

--------------------

The copyright of the book is 1984. The first edition was assembled in 1983.

The earlier copyrights are of when his speeches were given or his papers were written. There are three possibilities from this:

1) Dr. King did say that in a later speech. (If so, why the hardcore resistance to pointing out the correct source?)

2) It really was thought to come from the 1957 speech, but that one isn't copyrighted. (It could come from another speech.)

3) It's a fake quote but Mrs. King thought it was real (26 years later).

I trust a book over an internet source.

Sheesh, whatever was I thinking in trusting "The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University (that page links the same transcript I linked to) and Carnegie Mellon University. Obviously they are wrong and Mark is right because… because… well, because Mark says so, that's why!

</sarc>

and now you can't back that up.

Yeah, because obviously I haven't offered a single shred of evidence—no links, no sources, nothing—and you've been offering volumes of accurately quoted/referenced evidence that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt precisely where it came from.

</sarc>

Dude, are you trying make me run out of sarcasm? It ain't gonna happen.

the larger issue here is why you got started down this path.

It's simple, your long and glorious history of fake quotes and misrepresentations. You know, lies like this one.

All you had to do to answer me was show where it's actually from. It's that simple. I'm not like you. If it is a genuine quote, I'll simply accept it as genuine when shown where it's from.

But no, you have to go and pull out a long game of Standard Response #7 instead of going the simple "quick phone call" route and settling it.

Mark Ward said...

It's from the book, The Words of Martin Luther King edited by his wife and son. Why does it have to be from something available online, in a speech or public writings? What if it was something he said to her, his family, or friends? What if it was something he said all the time in conversation? Or perhaps some personal writings not available to the public? I've showed you where it is from. Why isn't it good enough for you?

Anonymous said...

Why does it have to be from something available online, in a speech or public writings?

Remember what you quoted?

this essential volume includes more than 120 quotations from the greatest civil rights leader’s speeches, sermons, and writings…

As far as I know, his greatest speeches, sermons, and writings are available online, making researching them easier. (That's the advantage of "online".) If it was something he said in offhand conversation in private, then it isn't from his "speeches, sermons, or writings" and is hearsay.

Why isn't it good enough for you?

When you claim THE Book is full of errors, why should we expect a lesser book to be without error?

GuardDuck said...

If a quote came from a letter or a speech then it has to be cited as such. If it came from a conversation it also has to be cited as such.

Mark Ward said...

Hmm...by that logic that would mean that all of the quotes in the book are fake since none of them have "citations." Are none of the quotes in the book authentic, NMN?

Then again, you haven't figured out yet where you went wrong yet (which I've known all along, btw, but I don't do end zone dances nor do I feel the need to "prove you wrong") so, please, I do insist that you continue to express your concern over the validity of this quote.

Anonymous said...

by that logic that would mean that all of the quotes in the book are fake since none of them have "citations." Are none of the quotes in the book authentic, NMN?

Markadelphia "logic":

"could contain errors" = "wrong in every detail"

Yep, how 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?

Have you ever done any debates over at debate.org? How badly were you crushed?

Have YOU considered that YOUR research might be in error? Doesn't sound like it.

Mark Ward said...

You're asking the wrong question, NMN. Let me see if I can give you a little nudge in the right direction. Let's take another quote from the book Dr. King wrote which you can see on Google docs.

Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a permanent attitude.

Now, let's use your methodology for tracking down from where these quotes came. A search provides the same type of sites as the quote you question...quote sites with "no sources."

This site came up down the list...

http://www.qotd.org/quotes/Martin.Luther.King

Note that some of the quotes on this site have "sources" and some do not (including the quote you have questioned here). This new quote I list above does not have a "source." Why is that? Why don't many of them? Are they all "fake?"

Let's move on to your site at Stanford and see if we can find "the source" of this one. A search of "All Text" provides 0 results. Is this quote now in question as well? How many more "fake quotes" could there be? How can this be?!!?

I think you may have uncovered a secret conspiracy:)


Anonymous said...

Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a permanent attitude.

Now, let's use your methodology for tracking down from where these quotes came. A search provides the same type of sites as the quote you question...quote sites with "no sources."


That's from his book "Strength To Love". (see here)

Anonymous said...

^^ That was me. Open ID is acting flaky.

Mark Ward said...

(See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for examples.)

Which one of those is fake? Oh wait, I see you added "or critical context" with fake to make them seem like they weren't actually saying things you don't like or don't want people to think. Can't have that ideology of yours questioned now, can we?:)

That's from his book "Strength To Love"

Isn't that a collection of his most famous sermons? Which sermon is the quote from?

Anonymous said...

you added "or critical context" with fake to make them seem like they weren't actually saying things you don't like or don't want people to think

Aaand right back to the Belgian waffle tactic.

Isn't that a collection of his most famous sermons? Which sermon is the quote from?

Aaand the willful ignorance rolls on. Click the link, Mark.

Mark Ward said...

I did but it didn't work. No problem, though, I just cut and pasted the title and found it.

The LIC data of Strength lists authorship as "King, Martin Luther." The Words of Dr. King has "King, Martin Luther" listed as the author as well. You cut and pasted that above. Where did you get the idea that his son wrote it? I just took your word for it. Given that he is the author of both books, are you now willing to admit that the quote is genuine? If not, we'll just wait and see if you can figure out where you went wrong:)

One other thing I should probably cop to...I have to say that I've enjoyed the idea of you pouring over Dr. King's speeches and sermons in the hopes of accusing me (and, sadly soon thereafter, the late Coretta King) of putting up a fake quote. The idea that you likely read this line

An individual has not begun to live until he can rise above the narrow horizons of his particular individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. And this is one of the big problems of life, that so many people never quite get to the point of rising above self. And so they end up the tragic victims of self-centeredness. They end up the victims of distorted and disrupted personality.

a few times actually made me laugh out loud. Did any of it rub off on you?:)

Anonymous said...

it didn't work

I just tried it again. It still works for me.

Where did you get the idea that his son wrote it?

Here. Though technically, Mrs. King and their son would be "editors" not the "author".

Did any of it rub off on you?

Are you claiming to be god again, that you know who I am and what's in my heart?

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
— James 4:11–12

So why are you hanging out here, not saying much, instead of carrying on the debate here? Are you pulling a Brave Sir Robin?

Anonymous said...

Where did you get the idea that his son wrote it?

Just to be sure whether or not Amazon was correct, I checked the publisher's web site. (It was originally New Market Press, but they were bought out by Harper Collins.) The "authors" are also listed there as Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, III.

Mark Ward said...

Then why does LIC list the author as "King, Martin Luther" in exactly the same manner as Strength to Love? Coretta King is listed but that's because she wrote the introduction, right? There is no mention of III. Why?

Do you now accept the fact that these are Dr. King's words?

To answer your other question, I can't really think of anything else to add, really. You seem to be doing just fine on your own in supporting my assertions:)

Anonymous said...

Then why does…

Wow. Just… wow.

I couldn't ask for a more perfect example of Standard Response #7:

--------------------
#7 The "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to.
--------------------

I can't really think of anything else to add, really. You seem to be doing just fine on your own in supporting my assertions:)

So then you are agreeing that…

• … you lied about the 10 Commandments in an attempt to put words in my mouth?

• … the fundamental difference between us is "the Bible says so" vs. "Markdelphia says so"?

• … you are simply ignoring me when I quote and point to the details of precisely what the Scripture says?

Mark Ward said...

What's the Standard Response where I'm losing an argument and then I change the subject again?:)

Anyhoo, letting you guys comment more without responding generally works out better...the whole less is more thing. Sort of like if you generally just sit back and let a conservative talk...sooner or later they Todd Akin or Richard Murdock up the whole mother and stun people with their ignorance and psychosis. Of course, no one other than you and I (and maybe the other three) are reading this post. Now, if you want to have a bigger audience, you should post more things in the "Socialist Windmills" post or the "Onward Christian Airmen" post which are getting far more hits.

Anonymous said...

So then it's officially Brave Sir Robin "I don't want to think about it" time. Got it.

Anonymous said...

BTW, which do you think is more self-centered?

A) "God defines morality"

or

B) "I define morality"

Anonymous said...

BTW,

Then why does LIC list the author as "King, Martin Luther" in exactly the same manner as Strength to Love?

The answer is obvious right within your question. Notice what is missing from "King, Martin Luther". There is no "Sr.", "Jr.", or "III" in the listings you're referring to.

If you had just paid attention to the details of the very evidence you presented, you would have noticed that it was not usable as the trump card you thought it was. As a result, the only thing you presented was proof of Standard Response #7. (Publisher's own web site vs. name listings that did not specify the generation.)

no one other than you and I (and maybe the other three) are reading this post

My, what an interesting way to say "shut up".

Mark Ward said...

Notice what is missing from "King, Martin Luther". There is no "Sr.", "Jr.", or "III" in the listings you're referring to.

name listings that did not specify the generation.)


So, he didn't write Strength to Love either?

If III did write The Words, it would appear copyrighted to him as it does in his book, My Daddy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Note the author in the copyright in both The Words and Strength. III is not listed anywhere in the LIC code. Perhaps he added something in a later edition?

Do you still contend that the quote is a fake?

Anonymous said...

So, he didn't write Strength to Love either?

::: sigh :::

Standard Response #7. Again, which extends it into Standard Response #12 territory.

--------------------
#12 The "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response. When he discovers, yet again, that he cannot counter his opponent's argument, he intentionally mischaracterizes his opponent's argument, reasoning, meaning, and even the plain language of his statements, and then argues against his own mischaracterization as if it shows his opponent to be wrong. He does not care that this shows him to be fundamentally dishonest and/or unable to understand what his opponent actually wrote, but it gives him yet another opportunity to avoid admitting that he is wrong and/or that his opponent is correct. While this response often embodies one or more of his other Standard Responses, overall it is a distinct form that is easily recognized.
--------------------

I guess it is true that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Mark Ward said...

That didn't answer my question.

BTW, since you seem to want to talk about God and Jesus so much, why do you waste so much time arguing with me? I would think it would better serve you to work on converting people who don't believe in God or Jesus at all. I believe wholeheartedly in both.

Anonymous said...

That didn't answer my question.

Scrolling back up and actually reading for comprehension would.

Anonymous said...

why do you waste so much time arguing with me?

Because you tell people that He's a liar or a fraud.