Several years ago, Martin Gardner, a columnist for a journal called *The Skeptical Inquirer* wrote two very uncomplimentary columns about *The Urantia Book*. About a year later, he decided to write a book on the same subject. He began to interview people in the Urantia community and to research material for his book. I was invited to his home for an interview and I accepted. That was how I met Martin Gardner.
In his book Gardner states that he couldn’t understand how I could admit that the book contains some errors, yet be open to the idea of fandors, birds large enough to carry several people. He calls me a “large friendly engineer” in his book; he didn’t find some other people so friendly. Some folks refused to talk to him and some became very angry when they read his book. Why were some people so angry about his book? Did he do justice to *The Urantia Book* in his “book report?”
## Connections with Seventh Day Adventism
One of the major themes of his book is that there is a connection between the Seventh Day Adventist church and *The Urantia Book*. He attempts to prove this by showing that at least two of the people on the contact commission, Dr. William Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg, had both been members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Furthermore, Wilfred’s father, the well known John Kellogg, was a prominent member of the church. Gardner also attempts to show that all three of these men had a great respect for Ellen White, an Adventist prophetess. But they all lost that respect and began to doubt her prophecies when they found out that she had plagiarized from human sources much of the material that she claimed was divine revelation. John Kellogg was ejected from the church, and not long after this Wilfred and Dr. Sadler both apparently resigned from the church. Gardner tries to show that the concepts in *The Urantia Book* are Adventist except for a few minor(!) ones like the doctrine of the Atonement and Original Sin. Gardner theorizes that Wilfred, Dr. Sadler and perhaps others generated *The Urantia Book*, and that accounts for its similarity to Adventism. And just what are these Adventist ideas?
## Dr Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg wrote the Urantia Papers?
In a chapter devoted to the Adventist-Urantia Book connection, Gardner lists numerous similarities. Two of the major ideas that are the same in the two are: No Hell, and soul sleeping until resurrection. He states that these concepts disagree with the concepts of “mainline Christianity.” He does not mention that at least two other smaller denominations do not support the idea of Hell; the two I know of are Unity and Unitarian Universalist. As far as the sleeping souls are concerned, I have never heard that Christian theology universally refutes this idea. He also tries to show that the Paradise-centered cosmology of *The Urantia Book* has as its source Ellen White’s ideas about the universe because she spoke of the “throne of God” with all creation circling around it. But he also admits that Adventists have long believed that the creation is 6000 years old. This is certainly different from the over four billion year age *The Urantia Book* gives for the earth and the over one trillion year age given for our local universe.
Gardner mentions several other similarities. Michael, the archangel, and Jesus are one in the same person according to both sources. He says that both teach the annihilation of the wicked. This is not strictly correct; what The Urantia Book teaches is actually non-resurrection of those who reject God. Had Gardner been an unbiased book reviewer, he would have given us a complete picture; he would have pointed out how *The Urantia Book* agrees or disagrees with the theology of other segments of Christianity. But perhaps that would have diluted his theme that *The Urantia Book* is an Adventist derivative.
## Contradictory logic
While Gardner makes some good points, he sometimes uses contradictory logic in an attempt to prove some of his points. At one place he theorizes that the ideas in *The Urantia Book* agree with Adventist theology because Wilfred had been an Adventist; at another place, he tells us that some ideas don’t agree because Wilfred “…abandoned Adventist beliefs.” (Pg. 226) Elsewhere, Gardner says that if Sadler left something in the book that turned out to be obviously wrong it was because he feared that readers would notice if he changed it. On the other hand, Gardner cites testimony that *The Urantia Book* was being edited until about 1949. So no one noticed the editing?
## Gardner’s multiple personality hypothesis
Gardner expressed the opinion that Wilfred’s channeled material was coming from an alternate personality within Wilfred’s mind. He also feels that Dr. Sadler wrote material and presented it to the revelators for approval by way of the sleeping Wilfred. It is difficult to believe that Dr. Sadler spent a fair amount of time investigating mediums and recognized this alternate personality in them, but not in Wilfred. But not all of Gardner’s comments about *The Urantia Book* were negative.
## Comments on the Jesus papers
Gardner calls the Jesus section of *The Urantia Book* impressive, but he points out that it’s not the only well written life of Christ. He extols Ellen White’s life of Jesus, _Desire of Ages_, as “beautifully written,” though he says that much of it was plagiarized. He points out several similarities between Ellen White’s work and the life of Jesus in _The Urantia Book_. He states that both the Adventist bible and _The Urantia Book_ move the comma in the biblical quotation where Jesus says to the thief on the cross beside him, I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise from just after “you” to after “today”—this then allows for the time lag between death and resurrection taught by both the Adventists and _The Urantia Book_. Note however, that in the Bible Jesus was not resurrected immediately. Surprisingly, though Gardner criticizes moving the comma, he also presents arguments in favor of doing so. For a change, he’s almost an impartial observer.
While Gardner is impressed with the Jesus papers, he does not think they are revealed truth. His theory is that this section of *The Urantia Book* was written by Dr. Sadler with perhaps some help from Dr. Lena Sadler, his wife.
## Urantia Book science and eugenics take a drubbing
Gardner is the most critical of the science of *The Urantia Book*, especially the eugenics. He ties the eugenics in the book to Dr. Sadler’s interest and writings about eugenics. Indeed, science and eugenics are two areas in which the book is most vulnerable to attack by critics.
Many students of *The Urantia Book* struggle with both the science and the eugenics in it. If the writers of the book had claimed that these ideas were divinely inspired, the credibility of the rest of the book would be seriously compromised. Since this is not the case, Gardner is simply pointing out what many students already know, and what the authors of the book admit—there are flaws in the science of the book. Nevertheless, there are some ideas in the book such as plate tectonics that Gardner can’t explain away easily without stretching the truth beyond its breaking point.
The eugenics issue is one that deserves some thoughtful consideration. Did the authors overstate their case? Ironically, Gardner may have done us a favor by pointing out areas of the book that other critics will surely target. The Urantia community needs to decide how to deal with such critics.
## Polytheism
Another charge Gardner levels at *The Urantia Book* is that it is polytheistic because it lists a number of gods. When he interviewed me, I pointed out that the same charge could be entered against Christianity because of the three persons of the Trinity; he chose not to reply to that charge. This didn’t surprise me since he intimated that the Christian “Trinity” is polytheism in another of his books, *The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener*. He seems to think that “the gods” refer to all of the various spiritual beings described by *The Urantia Book*. This is not so. The term “God” or “Gods” is reserved for the Father, Son, Infinite Spirit, the Supreme, the Ultimate and the Absolute. And ultimately, all these are unified in the I AM. Had Gardner read the book more carefully, he would have known this.
## Gardner finds Urantia Book funny
Gardner’s book took a great deal of effort and research; I’m sure that he knew it would have a very limited audience. He even revealed in his book that his wife thought he was wasting his time writing it. He claims that he wrote the book because of Dr. Sadler: “It is because of this astonishing switch of an intelligent, gifted man, from one cult to another…” He goes on to say, “I also must confess that I wrote this book because I found Urantiaism to be almost as funny as Mormonism, Christian Science, and Sun-Moonism.” Of course, he does mention early in his book that he had been an avid Adventist when he was a young man until he became quite disillusioned with it. Could his enmity for Adventism, and Dr. Sadler’s early connection with Adventism have anything to do with Gardner’s unrelenting attacks on *The Urantia Book*?
## Is Gardner’s book worth reading?
Is Gardner’s book worth reading? While it’s not deathless prose, it does put together more of the early history of the community and origins of *The Urantia Book* than anyone else has. It’s unfortunate that he was not more of an unbiased reporter, but then perhaps he wouldn’t have had the motivation to write the book. It’s also unfortunate that he gives so much credence to the opinions of the late Harold Sherman and Sherman’s widow. Since Sherman had a falling out with Dr. Sadler and the Forum and parted company with ill feelings, he can hardly be called a reliable source of information. But yes, we need to read his book. We can sometimes learn more from our opponents than from friends. Opponents may be biased, but sometimes they point out things that we’d rather not admit.
## Concluding remarks
I told Gardner at the end of our interview that I am a pragmatist. I try to evaluate spiritual material on the basis of its value to our spiritual life. I asked him if he thought that *The Urantia Book* was in the main helpful or detrimental to peoples’ spiritual growth. He didn’t seem to have an opinion in the matter. But of course, this isn’t the sort of question that a skeptic trying to debunk a book would ask the people he’s interviewing. It is acceptable, even desirable to point out apparent flaws in *The Urantia Book*, but in fairness, any reviewer should also point out the value of this book to those seeking to establish a relationship with God. Despite any real or imagined flaws Gardner points out in this book, I can say along with a host of others that this book persuaded me to think about my relationship with God like nothing else I have ever experienced. What is more important to our spiritual lives than finding God? *The Urantia Book* admonishes us to distinguish between that which has value from that which is value. This book has the value of leading us to God, who is the ultimate source of not only that which *has value* but even of that which *is value*.
## External links
- Article in Innerface International: https://urantia-book.org/archive/newsletters/innerface/vol3_1/page14.html