James Kilgore's Part in the 92 Affirmation Debacle

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

From page 255 of the book...

"It's wise on a resolution of that magnitude to find out who the author of the resolution is and what his real purpose was in forming that resolution. That I did not know." James Kilgore

I've read that and quite honestly, I have trouble processing it. Brother Kilgore knew who the author(s) of the Resolution were. Both men stood right there in front of him and declared it to be so right on the platform and in front of everyone else as well BEFORE Bro. Kilgore spoke. Moreover, both men had circulated letters to the constituency in the year running up to the GC vote.

Both men were also members of the General Board. This thing was hashed and rehashed for the better part of two years in GB meetings and JK was the Assistant General Superintendent and present in all of those meetings.

It took no "research" to know LW wrote the resolution and PP had written the "Whereas" preamble. It was no secret and both men were vigorously politicking to get the thing passed.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I've read that and quite honestly, I have trouble processing it. Brother Kilgore knew who the author(s) of the Resolution were. Both men stood right there in front of him and declared it to be so right on the platform and in front of everyone else as well. Moreover, both men had circulated letters to the constituency in the year running up to the GC vote.

Both men were also members of the General Board. This thing was hashed and rehashed for the better part of two years in GB meetings and JK was the Assistant General Superintendent and present in all of those meetings.

It took no "research" to know LW wrote the resolution and PP had written the "Whereas" preamble. It was no secret and both men were vigorously politicking to get the thing passed.

So Brother Kilgore was also "less than honest" in his interview with the author of CWTC?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

So Brother Kilgore was also "less than honest" in his interview with the author of CWTC?

I have no idea, but I sincerely doubt he was being "dishonest" to Fudge. We don't know the contents of the complete conversation. Tom Fudge was a preeminent gentleman in his presentation - despite the way the book was received by much of the UPC. It was anything BUT a "hit piece."

Fudge went to pains to portray the "other side" (Westberg, et. al.) as "gentlemen" and "men of conviction." Fudge's interest was to give voice to a sequestered and silenced minority in way that would be acceptable to the men who had silenced them. In part, I imagine, he wanted the "revisionists" to read his book and feel some pity toward those who they had ostracized.

I suspect... and this is just me, I have no "evidence" or anything like that to prove it... this is just the impression I got from reading the book... I suspect that Fudge's quotes of Kilgore were selected in a manner that Fudge thought might prove to be a "balm of healing" to the fractured group he was interviewing.