So... now I've locked the thread, closing it. Reserving for myself the last word.
I think JDGreear's explanation is sufficient to account for all the relevant facts.
Now, for a word about our own board and its use as a conversation space: There is a reason why we don't encourage our internet presence to be used as a platform for one side in a forum-war. The PB isn't a "discernment ministry," and we limit our membership; so equal time isn't an option for a number of people "we" may disagree with to come on and defend themselves. "We" disagree among ourselves, air it out, and try to do it in a relatively civil manner, keeping in mind biblical standards for disputes. The PB isn't going to be beneficial if it is perceived as a site that targets people (even if they are wrong) or disparages venues and sites and institutions promoting errors.
Of course, being FOR something and certain ideas (that come from people), being "confessional" within a defined tradition, the PB will inevitably stand at odds with other people, institutions, and internet spaces. But, to my knowledge the PB has never answered any attack or published disagreement, if leveled against the board or a particular member. Whoever "they" may be, they are entitled to their opinion and any mud they feel like slinging. Our position is: 1) body of work, and 2) scoreboard. We indeed must mark them who are divisive and a threat to the church, but we must do it with care and following good principles.
The PB needs also to be careful about taking on the character of a broadcast medium, a bulletin board for the purpose of "getting the word out" about this and that. Especially about "perpetrators" and "victims." There's so much victim Olympics going on today, people are overeager to shame and be at the front of denunciations; because getting in early means extra points for being on top of the situation. One of the sad collateral damages of the current climate is the concept of due process. It gets trampled in the rush to judgment, and people think little of it... until they sure wish it was still around to provide THEM some legitimate cover when the target is painted on their own chests.
This PSA is an appeal to all our members to "think before you post." You don't want to have to walk it back after taking a precipitous stance. You don't want to have to say, "Well, it's still a problem generally," or "He's still/ that institution is still wrong 90% of the time." Doesn't make us look any better, for perpetuating a false narrative, disseminating fake news.
***EDIT*** I'm adding an additional word, to make it clear that
1) there was little doubt whether borrowing or some other "common usage" of the sermonic material was done; no attention to both synopsis-presentations could evade the growing impression that one source was their basis
2) what could not be proved (and was denied by the purported victim) was that this repetition was done surreptitiously, that is without the permission of JDG who, as the first speaker, gains the benefit of the doubt as to originality
And because the allegation in its original form pertained to illegitimate and surreptitious, uncredited borrowing--i.e. rank plagiarism of a fellow minister's labor--when that charge was explained away by first-hand reportage, that allegation immediately fell. "This man is a thief, and doesn't deserve to be leading the SBC," was refuted by the so-called victim.
Reporting the common-source as a "plagiarism" failed the fundamental test of plagiarism, and for that reason--like any reputable news-outlet would be required to do to preserve its integrity--some end to the discussion, and a correcting of the false idea had to be brought.
As there could be (and are) other issues related to the practice of using someone else' material to teach or preach, and how one presents the material he gathers, and on what basis one gets a reputation for standing as a minister of the gospel, let me further clarify that shutting down this thread does not prevent discussion of such issues, even (or especially) as they pertain to this man or these men.
But this thread had to end. Thanks for listening.
