Suspect all you want, it’s really kind of a minor or isolated issue given the rest of King’s ugly past. Do you really think that every woman that attended all of his orgies expected or wanted to perform whatevers as directed? The paid prostitutes would not care. I would venture that some of the church ladies or speech attendees were coerced as is documented in another transcript published in 2013....
Just as men should not be masquerading as Catholic Priests, they shouldn’t be masquerading as a Baptist Preacher.
The Baptist faith has certain distinguishing characteristics and you don’t just become a preacher. Doctrinally, King would be defined as a false prophet since he professed few if any tents of the Baptist faith and denied the fundamentals of the faith. As he wrote about his complete confusion about God, it seems like he was not accepting or believing his chosen field of study, but saw it as an opportunity for his agenda. So he used the church and it’s faithful flock. And he used their women (Shades of Joseph Smith.)
What kind of a “Christian” attends a seminary school only to steal other people’s works to fraudulently acquire a theological degree? What kind of person does this? ... a fraudster...a thief....a con-man
Did he ever truly really believe in God, or was the reality that he had a hidden agenda. Why was he unable to come up with his own original, genuine work and present that to earn a theological degree rather than through fraud and deception?
The first public sermon that King ever gave, in 1947 at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, was plagiarized almost in its entirety from a homily by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick. It was entitled, “Life is What You Make It.” And this one personally bugs me, because it was his chance to start a new life in the house of God and speak pleasingly to God’s ears.
MLK’s book “Stride Toward Freedom”, has been determined to have been plagiarized from multiple different separate sources. (Levinson included)
King plagiarized all of his papers at Boston University and Crozer Theological Seminary, and most extensively, his essay “The Place and Reason and Experience in Finding, his thesis “Contemporary Continental Theology”, his doctoral dissertation “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman”, and various other documented works.
“King’s plagiarisms are easy to detect because their style rises above the level of his pedestrian student prose. In general, if the sentences are eloquent, witty, insightful, or pithy, or contain allusions, analogies, metaphors, or similes, it is safe to assume that the section has been purloined.” In one case, 20 out of a total of 24 paragraphs show “verbatim theft.”-— Wow, that’s 80%!!
https://www.amren.com/news/2018/01/martin-luther-king-jr-plagiarism/
So now we have a veteran and habitual plagiarist who is a deviant serial fornicator posing as a Baptist Preacher, and bought and paid for by CPUSA. And we have a holiday honoring his name, and statues and more streets than Washington, Lincoln, Adams, and Jefferson combined.
If you’re going to condemn King for plagiarism (and let’s face it, we could argue a LOT of people plagiarized just from taking stuff here and there, since there’s rarely a truly original thought out there), I strongly suggest, by virtue of consistency, you do the same with Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Richard Henry Lee even accused Jefferson of plagiarizing John Locke’s Second Treatise with the Declaration, and Jefferson never denied it, and if anything he even implied that’s what made it a strong document. Here: https://mises.org/library/real-jefferson
“In fact, Richard Henry Lee accused Jefferson of plagiarism. According to the man who signed the first motion for independence in June 1776, the Declaration was copied from John Locke’s Second Treatise. The Virginian had no reason to dispute that allegation. In fact, Jefferson considered this to be the document’s real strength:
The object of the Declaration of Independence … was … not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject … Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind ... All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.”
Either way, at least Martin Luther King didn’t forge, in an extremely blasphemous manner in fact, an entire bible called the “MLK bible” that gutted any and all supernatural aspects from it and made Jesus little different from a wise philosopher rather than the Son of God, while Jefferson had in fact done that.