© 1997 The Fellowship for readers of The Urantia Book
In this issue, we are publishing letters received from our readers on substantive issues affecting the Urantia movement. In two instances, Matthew Block, our reader services correspondent, has written a reply.
D.N.
Colorado
I acquired a copy of The Urantia Book in a metaphysical or “New Age” book store. I normally don’t buy spiritual books from such stores, but I was looking for alternative reading on Christ that would contain historically and culturally accurate retellings of his life in conjunction with the reality of his being the Son of God. I found this in The Urantia Book — and much more.
Your book is truly remarkable, not only for the revelations it contains, but also for the sheer number of them. The book is more than 2,000 pages of radical and thought-provoking, if not illuminating and inspiring, proclamations on supernatural reality. So far I have merely skimmed the first three parts of the book, but the fourth part — The Life and Teachings of Jesus — I’ve given a good deal of study.
I found myself agreeing with most of what is written, while some I found quite opposed to the Christian theology I’ve learned. I will have to weigh it carefully, praying and meditating on it, before I can give it credence. Even so, I appreciate the insights and elaborations presented in the fourth part, which allows me to view the Gospels of the Bible in a new perspective and with greater understanding.
What I’m wondering is who wrote The Urantia Book? Yes, I know the book proclaims to be authored by such divine beings as the “Universal Censor,” “Perfector of Wisdom,” “Melchizedek,” and “Midway Commission.” If this is the case, then my question is who transcribed this book? What is the history of its making? What evidence do the transcribers have to support this book? I am genuinely interested here.
Reply:
For many years the only published source of information regarding the origins of The Urantia Book was the short leaflet, “The Urantia Book: The Question of Origin” by Meredith Sprunger. Information was slight because the early leaders feared that focusing on the origins would distract attention from the teachings themselves. In recent years, however, attempts have been made to provide a more informative history and longer essays on the book’s origin are now available.
These publications are Mark Kulieke’s “Birth of a Revelation: The Story of the Urantia Papers” and Dr. William S. Sadler’s “History of the Urantia Movement.” Both describe the human-superhuman interaction which took place in Chicago over a period of approximately 50 years, and which led to the publication of The Urantia Book in 1955.
Mark Kulieke collected anecdotes and documents from several early participants. Dr. Sadler was a firsthand participant, intimately involved in the interactions from the very beginning.
Both essays make it clear that the Urantia revelation was not attended by spectacular phenomena. The whole decades-long process was quiet and unobtrusive. The superhuman revelators never attempted to prove their existence by sight, but rather by the unique and profound intelligence and spirituality of the revelation itself. The superhumans carried on dialogue with a small group of humans mainly through writing, using a sleeping man (now unknown) as an intermediary. The handwritten manuscripts were destroyed long ago. Thus, proof of the existence of the revelators can be obtained only through deduction and inference.
The fact is, the humans who are known to have been associated with the reception of the Urantia Papers were incapable of producing such a comprehensive, masterful and inspiring text. One of the people, Dr. William S. Sadler, was a prolific author. Attempts have been made to compare his writings with The Urantia Book. In the opinion of most, the divergencies in style, tone and range of competence are too marked to peg Sadler as the author. This divergency is immediately clear in the opening pages of The Urantia Book, where the revelators expound an original and meticulously formulated theological and metaphysical system which is quite alien to Sadler’s frame of reference and way of thinking. Indeed, Sadler himself consistently denied any role in the writing and editing of the Urantia Papers.
As Meredith Sprunger concludes in his abovementioned leaflet: “Only a firsthand experience of the superlative message of the book can confirm the spiritual source of its origin. In reality, information about its origin has nothing to do with the truth or spiritual quality of the book. This must be judged by the reader on the basis of the content of the book … The indwelling spirit in us affirms the everlasting truth of its message.”
For more information on ordering Mark Kulieke’s “Birth of a Revelation,” contact Morning Star Foundation, c/o Mark Kulieke, P.O. Box 9343, Green Bay, WI 543089343, (414) 469-8846. Dr. Sadler’s “History of the Urantia Movement” is available through Jesusonian Foundation, P.O. Box 18764, Boulder, CO 80308, (800) 767-5683. Meredith Sprunger’s “The Urantia Book: The Question of Origin” is available from the Fellowship, 529 Wrightwood Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614, (773) 327-0424.
P.H.
Virginia
It seems to me that the Urantia movement is making the same mistake that the followers of Jesus made after he left the planet. They allowed the religion about Jesus to take the place of the religion of Jesus. The statement in a letter in Issue No. 6 of the Study Group Herald typifies the thrust of the movement today: “It is truthful to say that The Urantia Book has become my religion.”
It seems obvious to me that the gospel of the kingdom — the parenthood of God and the siblinghood of the rest of us — should be foremost in our presentation and that The Urantia Book should take its place behind and in support of that. Instead, it is leading the way and no doubt causing those who have not been reborn in the spirit to stumble over its weighty concepts, if not its sheer size alone.
The divine purpose of The Urantia Book is not to fill the spiritually dead with cold facts, but to enrich the living with a means for growth. After such people have attained purer lives and greater understanding, their light will lead others into the higher manifestation of the kingdom (or God’s family).
Only the unusual few will be able to stick with a “whole camel” of scripture such as The Urantia Book long enough to learn the truths needed for spiritual conversion. Too much too soon causes confusion rather than enlightenment, but the simple gospel has the power to transform. Only it can properly prepare the ground for seeding by the Fifth Epochal Revelation.
The Urantia Papers were first given to a group of spiritually living people, and it is to be spread through the creation of other such groups, the study groups. But the proclamation of the gospel is still best illustrated in the image of a sower of seeds who broadcasts them widely. Some do not take root, some wither or dry up, and some grow and flourish, yet none are wasted.
Reply:
Obviously a book can’t “become one’s religion,” but it can become a powerful catalyst in transforming one’s perspective and gratifying one’s spiritual and philosophic yearnings.
Many people have been intensely grateful to read The Urantia Book because it answers timeless questions about how God works out his will in the universe. Many individuals already believe in God but lack a cosmic vision of God’s plans and purposes.
Are you aware that the vast majority of Americans, and the majority of the world’s population, already believe in some version of the gospel of the kingdom? A recent survey reported in USA Today revealed that most Americans believe in God and value love as the supreme revelation of Godliness. The Spirit of Truth has not been inactive during the past 2,000 years. In spite of our secularistic, materialistic society, belief in God and the desire to do good is still alive and well in the hearts of millions.
What many thinking people need today is not just a simple reiteration of the proclamation of the parenthood of God and our familial relatedness to our fellows. They need and crave a fresh and enhanced elaboration of the simple truths of the gospel, suited to the enlarged horizons of the modern age. The Urantia Book arrived on this world to fill this need, to answer questions with divine comprehensiveness and authority, in order to provide a context that sheds cosmic light on the simple gospel truths.
One of our main jobs as experienced Urantia Book readers is to sharpen our understanding of the book’s teachings and to find a multitude of ways to reach people with these truths.
Since it is manifestly clear that: (1) many intelligent and sincere people (not just "the unusual few’) are equipped to benefit from a study of The Urantia Book’s multifaceted teachings and (2) the book addresses and was meant to be applicable to the 20th century, I see no good reason for concentrating on the gospel at the expense of focusing on the entire body of teachings in The Urantia Book.
Many of the strongest opponents of the Urantia teachings will be, and have been, spiritually oriented. Many of the strongest adherents of the teachings will be, and have been, individuals who may not at first be recognized as spirit motivated. Preaching and practicing the simple gospel will prepare the ground for personal salvation and planetary improvement, but it will not necessarily prepare the ground for the Fifth Epochal Revelation, since The Urantia Book contains some observations, teachings and judgments that may not ring true with spirit-born individuals who hold divergent opinions on theological, sociologic and scientific issues.
Knowing that the book will inevitably be controversial, we in the vanguard must be brave, resourceful and realistic. We must prepare ourselves to witness to the truth and excellence of The Urantia Book, answer questions about its teachings, and recognize where the teachings stand in relation to the religious, philosophical, sociologic and scientific currents of the day.
Our spirituality and dedication will grow as we respond to these challenges.
Wayne & Ute Ferrier
Berkshire, NY
In an effort to refute The Urantia Book, Martin Gardner examined several statements from the book and analyzed communications from people conversant with it. Among the numerous details Gardner tries to prove erroneous is the existence of cannibalism and he challenges the notion that ritual cannibalism was universal in primitive societies. In his book, Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery, Gardner writes the following: “Today’s anthropologists are rapidly accepting the view that ritual cannibalism, as opposed to cannibalism for survival and other reasons, never existed.”
Gardner bases his statement on William Arens’s book, The Man-Eating Myth. According to Gardner, “Arens argues convincingly that belief in such rituals rests entirely on hearsay statements by missionaries, or by naive anthropologists reporting what was told to them by neighboring enemy tribes about practices they never witnessed.”[1]
Upon further examination, however, the picture is quite different from the one Gardner paints. Not only does Gardner distort the essence and purpose of Arens’s book, he also neglects to mention that this anthropologist is a highly controversial figure in his discipline. Rebuttals of Arens’s argument are not difficult to find and several book reviews on The Man-Eating Myth have been published. Gardner takes Arens as an authority on the subject, ignores critics, implies that Arens is representative of “anthropologists today” and utilizes it as proof to one more falsity extant in The Urantia Book.
Gardner does not mention that Arens’s book is less about whether or not cannibalism existed or exists and more an attempt to discredit anthropology as a discipline. Ivan Brady, who reviewed Arens’s book in the American Anthropologist, reminds the reader that “Arens’s book is less an attempt to set the record straight on cannibalism (where it does or does not occur and why) than it is an indictment of anthropology…”[2] Although The Man-Eating Myth has successfully cautioned anthropologists about their use of evidence, it has not proven rationally or persuasively that ritual cannibalism does not exist.[3] Janet Hook, assistant editor at The Public Interest wrote in her review that Arens’s argument “smacks a little too much of academic ax-grinding. It vastly overstates the case to imply that anthropologisis’ whole professional identity is at stake in their belief in cannibals.”[4] Arens is up front about this and states early on that for him the “question whether or not people eat each other is taken as interesting but moot.”[5]
At the end of his book Arens concludes that what remains certain is "that all cultures, subcultures, religions, sects, secret societies and every other possible human association have been labeled anthropophagic [cannibalistic] by someone.[6] Arens is convinced that there is insufficient scientific evidence to substantiate cannibalism and he challenges the validity of some better-known cases. Arens is correct that most of the stories about cannibalism are hard to verify and often stories were passed on by individuals who had no scientific qualifications. However, critics of Arens have pointed out that sometimes he dismisses evidence because the slightest details don’t add up.[7] While some of Arens’s criticism is justified, he weakens his argument by the way in which he discredits all first-hand sources. For example, Arens questions the validity of one account of cannibalism, because the Indians are described as both naked and wearing feathers.[8]
According to Brady, Arens’s argument is an “unsophisticated version of positivism and naturalism” which insists on the so-called scientific method.[9] Arens is preoccupied with scientific fact and less interested in the meaning of the accounts. Arens himself acknowledges in his book that the cases he studies are not necessarily representative and anticipates that some of his colleagues will refute him with knowledge of a people he failed to examine. He also states that “[a]ccording to standard ethnographic methodology, it is not possible to demonstrate conclusively that a practice does not exist.”[10] Arens’s approach was to discredit some of the more popular case studies to demonstrate his point. For Arens the act of cannibalism is not universal but the idea of ”others" as cannibals is.[11] It was usually those strange people down yonder who were stigmatized as man-eaters.
Cannibalism, however, was not exclusively a means to label others. Some people, such as the Iroquois Indians of eastern North America acknowledged cannibalism as part of their own past. The Deganawidah legend of the Iroquois people, which among other things speaks of cannibalism, exists in several versions. The element of cannibalism is present in all the surviving versions, although other details of the legend vary somewhat.[12]
Arens’s main contention is that there is not enough scientific evidence to accept cannibalism as a fact. If, however, a lack of scientific standard is what Arens tries to correct, it is all the more paradoxical that Gardner took up the argument without acknowledging the controversy or researching the issue.
divine energy pervades all creation … forever pattern of PAradise into the energies of space.
Martin Gardner. Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. New York: Prometheus Books, 1995; p. 218. ↩︎
See p. 601 in Ivan Brady. “The MythEating Man.” American Anthropologist 84 (Summer 1982): 595-611. ↩︎
Brady; p. 606. ↩︎
“Janet Hook. “The Man-Eating Myth.” New Republic 181 (September 1, 1979): 36. ↩︎
William Arens. The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology & Anthropophagy. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979; p. 9. ↩︎
Arens; p. 139. ↩︎
Hook; p. 36 ↩︎
Hook; p. 36 ↩︎
Brady; p. 598. ↩︎
Arens; p. 181. ↩︎
Arens; p. 139. ↩︎
Dean R. Snow. The Iroquois. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1994; p. 60. ↩︎