|
POLYTHEISM?
(1) First, I wonder if "polytheistic" accurately describes
the UB’s theology. Polytheism, to my mind, connotes a host of nature
gods often working at cross-purposes. I prefer to think that the
revelators expound a sort of pluralistic trinitarianism. The relations
between the three Persons of the Godhead—absolutely at one in the
Trinity, but acting as separate Sources and Centers in the work of
creation—lay the foundations for all reality. The revelators distinguish
"Gods" from "gods," giving no credence to the latter
term. "Gods" denotes the three Persons of the Trinity, or,
rarely, the Creator Sons, of which Jesus (Michael) is one. The Creator
Sons spring from the Father and the Son, partake of the absolute divinity
of their Trinity parents, and act in perfect harmony with one another
(each Creator Son fostering a separate local universe) and with the
Trinity. The first page of Paper 1, extolling the monotheistic insight
that recognizes one Creator at the heart of reality, sets the tone for the
rest of the book.
SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTIST INFLUENCE
(2) Re the incorporation of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs: There is
indeed a recognizable legacy of themes from SDA scattered throughout the
book. As well as the doctrines of soul sleep and annihilation of the
wicked (which latter belief is held by many other denominations, including
the Anglican Church), one shared element not mentioned by Gardner is the
account of the rebellion of Satan (or, in the UB, Lucifer). Ellen White’s
chapter "The Origin of Evil" in her The Great Controversy,
reads like a rudimentary anticipation of the UB’s discussion of the
Lucifer Rebellion, particularly in its focus on Lucifer’s resentments
and motivations. The UB adds dimension to the scenario by explaining
Lucifer’s position in the cosmic hierarchy, the proneness of the members
of his order of Sonship to self-exaltation, and how his administrative
superiors contained the rebellion by quarantining Urantia and the other
planets whose superhuman administrators aligned with the rebels.
Interestingly,
though, most of the incorporated insights or tenets from SDA are rather
secondary, and many are shared with other denominations. Moreover, the
shared beliefs are often modified. For instance, the UB does not uniformly
prescribe soul sleep until the resurrection. We are told that spiritually
advanced individuals, upon death, proceed directly to the "mansion
worlds" and regain consciousness on the third day.
The
dominant elements of the UB—i.e. the theological and cosmological
primacy of the three Persons of the Trinity; evolution as a cosmic
principle; novel ideas as to the real mission and meaning of the bestowal
of Jesus; the evolution of the finite God (the Supreme) and our role in
his progressive self-manifestation; the indwelling of a discrete fragment
of God in each normal-minded human soul; our future career as "finaliters"
and ministers to other types of created beings in the as-yet-uninhabited
universes, etc.—were not anticipated by SDA. Yet all of these themes are
presented in the UB so meticulously and in such richness of detail, that
it is difficult to account for them as having been concocted by Sadler
(and/or Wilfred Kellogg, assuming— which I do not—that he was the
"sleeping subject") as a simple reaction against SDA. For this
reason, it is misleading to describe the Urantia movement, as I believe
Gardner does, as an offshoot of Seventh-day Adventism, created by a
disillusioned Sadler while "on the rebound" from SDA. The UB is
too distanced from the cardinal precepts of that church, calmly dismissing
or ignoring such doctrines as the imminent return of Christ, the necessity
of observing the seventh-day Sabbath, the "shut door" doctrine,
the "Spirit of prophecy" operating through inspired modern-day
prophets/prophetesses, the infallibility of the Bible, the atonement,
original sin, non-evolutionary creationism, etc.
I
have not found that SDA recognizes an indwelling portion of God in the
human soul similar to the UB’s conception of the Thought Adjuster. SDAs
interpret the "spirit" as the breath. As one of their books puts
it, "The formula for a living soul is therefore the following: Dust
plus breath = living soul." Of course, SDAs recognize the indwelling
Spirit of Christ; still, The UB’s conception of the Thought Adjuster has
more affinity with Socrates’ daemon or the Quakers’ Inner Light, since
it posits that each individual is endowed with a discrete, unique fragment
of God operating as a divine guide and compass.
SDAs
and Urantians both equate Jesus with Michael. However, Ellen White, seeing
Jesus working ubiquitously throughout Old Testament history, also equates
him with the I AM (of the burning bush) and Immanuel, which the UB does
not. The UB identifies
these last two with other divine personalities or manifestations of the
Godhead. Thus, to SDA’s Michael is not the specific and exclusive
"other name" of Jesus, unlike in the UB.
UB AS ARIAN?
(3) Re the UB being Arian: The UB posits an absolutely unified Trinity
as well as the Creatorhood (not creaturehood) of Jesus/Michael (who is not
a member of the infinite Trinity but the divinely perfect Son of two of
its members). Therefore it is inaccurate to describe the UB as Arian,
since Arius rejected any sort of trinitarian Godhead. The UB is neither
Arian nor strictly Athanasian but endorses and integrates insights from
both views. Here is an instance of the UB’s ability to reconcile
heretofore contradictory positions through its multi-levelled system of
Deity and reality. (On p. 2070 the UB author lauds Athanasius for
contending against the errors of Arius.)
GALACTIANISM
(4)
Your discussion of galactianism was most informative. Since my research
has centered on mainstream religious and ä academic literature of the
early 20th century, I’ve not read carefully the galactian works you
cite, but I see from your remarks that it would be instructive to do so.
Likewise
I’ve not read much theosophy. But I tend to doubt that the similarities
would be extensive or exclusive, since the UB disavows reincarnation,
astrology, avatars and spiritualism. Nor, unlike Mormonism or the
Unification Church, does the book posit a corporeal God. The UB does
explain that "matter" may be constituted in ways radically
different from what we know, and that divine administrators do reside on
"architectural worlds". The Gods reside on the "timeless,
spaceless Isle of Paradise", but their abode is described as
"wholly spiritual" (p. 120).
The
paper "Energy - Mind and Matter" offers a remarkable review of
the sources, levels and manifestations of energy, which again allows for a
reconciliation of heretofore conflicting apprehensions - in this case, of
the relationship between matter and spirit.
(5)
Re the suppression of material on "hybrids" alleged by Loose
and Sherman: I find it impossible to believe, from reading the UB’s rich
and detailed description of the evolutionary process (see, for instance,
the sensible if sometimes unorthodox account in the paper "The
Overcontrol of Evolution"), that such material could ever have been
part of the Urantia Papers. This secondhand story is undoubtedly a garbled
recollection from Loose or Sherman, possibly reflecting a previous
involvement of either or both with theosophy or some other related belief
system. The only faint analogy with this in the UB is the account of the
mating of some members of the Planetary Prince’s humanized staff with
humans. The offspring were called Nodites. The revelators describe the
original generations of Nodites as being endowed with superior physique,
mentality and spirituality, owing to their part-superhuman (but humanized)
parentage. The Nodites later amalgamated with others, eventually
disappearing as a distinct people.
Loose’s
garbled anecdote has not been attested to by any other Forum member, so
far as I know. But apparently Gardner had no hesitation in including
information from any source, provided it was bizarre and negative.
RACE AND RACIAL
DIFFERENCES
(6)
Re the UB’s discussion of eugenics and racial differences: Yes, this is
one part of the UB that embarrasses some believers. But in the days before
cultural relativism, it was commonly recognized that peoples or races,
living in isolation, are not equal in their  capacity
to create and foster civilizations. The Urantia Book endorses this view,
using words like "inferior" and "superior" to
characterize the original races based on their performances as
civilization builders. Despite such race-linked differences, each of the
original races produced at least one inspired genius who was later
selected to serve on the Council of Four and Twenty (see p. 513), an
advisory panel wielding great influence in the local universe, and which
rotates leadership on an equal basis.
The
Urantia Book also uses outmoded terms such as "degenerate" and
"defective" to describe sociopaths, warning of the dangers of
allowing vicious, anti-social people (or those of grossly subnormal
intelligence) to reproduce freely. Of course, in the early 20th century,
when the Papers were being received, eugenics was considered legitimate.
It was later discredited for being pseudo-scientific and driven by social
prejudices. The UB’s eugenic prescriptions, unlike Sadler’s in his
early writings, are mild and cautious. From p. 585: "The difficulty
of executing such a radical program [of eliminating the unfit] on Urantia
consists in the absence of competent judges to pass upon the biologic
fitness or unfitness of the individuals of your world races.
Notwithstanding this obstacle, it seems that you ought to be able to agree
upon the biologic disfellowshiping of your more markedly unfit, defective,
degenerate, and antisocial stocks."
Despite
their assertion of hereditary inequalities amongst individuals (and
formerly amongst races, before widespread intermixing made such
differences impossible to discern accurately), the revelators do indeed
emphasize our absolute equality in the sight of God. Urantia Book
believers are thus faced with the challenge of reconciling two value
systems—one hereditarian, inequalitarian, and applicable to this life
only; the other spiritual, equalitarian and applicable to this life and
throughout eternity. But this challenge, as Gardner correctly points out,
is not unique to Urantians. The denial of hereditary differences in mental
aptitude is a very recent position, and one which is by no means
universally accepted.
But
notwithstanding pronounced differences among the early human races, the UB
maintains that slavery is abolished early in the development of normal
planets (see, for example, p. 587). Democracy is indeed the norm; however,
we are told (p. 817) that on advanced planets, meritocracy is superimposed
upon democracy, resulting in a weighted voting system which grants each
person at least one vote, with extra votes given to "individuals who
have rendered great service to society, or who have demonstrated
extraordinary wisdom in government service."
(7)
Contrary to Gardner’s claim, the UB nowhere "urges Urantians to
replace [Christianity] with a ‘new cult’ destined to be the ‘true
religion’ of the future." The pages cited by Gardner (p. 965-966)
use the word "cult" as a synonym for "cultus" -
meaning a system of shared religious symbolism and procedures that serves
to bond believers together, strengthening their loyalties to spiritual
values. The writer of these passages says that early Christianity had
an effective cult, not that it was a cult. The "new
cult" proposed by the revelator is meant to "facilitate
spiritual progress, enhance cosmic meanings, augment moral values . .
." and, as such, can be incorporated into any existing religion.
Nowhere in the UB is it implied that Christianity must be overthrown
before the Urantia revelation can make an impact, or that Christianity is
bound to decline as the Urantia movement grows. Indeed, the book is meant
to act as a revivifying influence upon all religions, although obviously
the Urantia teachings may prove more amenable to some religions than
others.
My
research shows that, of all belief systems, the Urantia Book’s religious
and philosophical teachings have most in common with a type of liberal
Protestantism that flourished in the early decades of the twentieth
century in both England and America. The bulk of human sources comes from
this corpus of Anglo-American liberal theists and philosophers, most of
whom, like the Urantia Book, upheld the divinity of Christ but disavowed
the atonement doctrine. Disavowal of atonement did not begin with the New
Age movement but was rather a staple tenet of many respected, mainstream
religionists since the mid 19th century. With the rise of modern Biblical
criticism, Christians began to perceive the Pauline overlay of
Christianity and wanted to get back to the "real religion of
Jesus." Many such Christians came to conclusions very similar to the
teachings of the Urantia Book regarding the miracles of Jesus, his
divinity, the purpose of his bestowal and the heart of his message.
Therefore Gardner is quite wrong in saying that the UB "insults
humanists and liberal Christians by its elaborate polytheism and its
acceptance of so many New Testament miracles..." In fact, the UB
rejects most of these so-called miracles and endorses many of the time-honoured
beliefs of liberal Christians.
True,
the UB does introduce a novel theology and cosmology that may be baffling
at first, but a sustained study would show that this system is neither
gratuitously complex nor simply a phantasmagorical hotchpotch. It is
logical and consistent, and provides
an enlightening framework for answering many perplexing questions,
including the nature and purpose of evil, the meaning of "Be you
perfect even as the Father in heaven is perfect", the origin and
destiny of the created universe and its relation to the plans and purposes
of Deity, etc.
I
prefer to believe that the teachings of the UB will speak appealingly to
middle-of-the-roaders, those who are neither confirmed New Agers nor
Fundamentalists, but who are looking for intellectually satisfying and
spiritually inspiring modern answers to timeless questions.
(8)
Re my work exposing the extent of literary borrowing in the UB: My
original estimate that about one-third of Parts I and II and about
two-thirds of Parts III and IV contain passages paralleling previously
published material, is being generally borne out.
I’m
now preparing my first book of a planned series which will explore how
sources were used in various sections of the UB. The book will begin with
an introductory overview of my findings and will then focus on four papers
(one paper from each Part), detailing how the source material used in each
paper was revised and reinterpreted so as to harmonize with the original
framework of the revelation. Since you found Gardner’s review of
parallels to be tedious, you would probably find my sentence-by-sentence
comparative analyses all the more so! Nevertheless, this work needs to be
done in order to show that the Urantia Book cannot be dismissed as a
patchwork of plagiarisms or workmanlike paraphrasing.
I’m
convinced that a sustained comparative analysis will persuade believers
and non-believers alike that, regardless of who is responsible for it,
this work of restatement (which was systematically carried out from the
first to the last page of the UB, although certainly not on every page) is
a masterpiece of creative literary borrowing, unparalled in literature. My
study of the previous cases of plagiarism or literary borrowing, including
that of Ellen G. White, has reinforced this impression.
Gardner’s
treatment of "plagiarisms in the UB" barely gives a foretaste of
my findings, since he generally sticks to examples of restatements of
scientific and historical facts. And how much creative editing can be
exercised in restating the fact that a certain tribe worships stones? The
genius of the revelators becomes especially apparent in their retuning of
religious and cosmic insights.
Nevertheless,
for all his snideness, distortions and sloppy scholarship, the Urantia
movement has Gardner to thank for putting us on the map, and for breaking
the path for future studies. Regardless of the fact that his book was
published by Prometheus Press (the book-publishing arm of the sceptical
movement in America, founded by atheist philosopher Paul Kurtz and
dedicated to undermining theistic faith) and was barely edited (since
Gardner, as the grandfather of the sceptics, gets carte blanche to
publish anything he wants, in the way he wants), he has forced Urantia
Book readers to see the Urantia Book and movement in historical
perspective.
Now,
hopefully, the time will soon be ripe for treatments of the Urantia
Book/movement by both neutral observers and committed believers, who will
cover the same ground as Gardner but from a more balanced and/or
sympathetic angle. Surely more informed understandings will arise of the
links between the Urantia Book and Sadler, Seventh-day Adventism, world
literature, 20th century science, etc. Moreover, the unique and original
elements of the book’s synthesis of theology, philosophy and cosmology—whose
systematic exposition Gardner completely ignores, although an appreciation
of this systematicity is essential for a real understanding of the UB’s
achievement— should also become more apparent.
Thank you again for writing the review and sharing it with us. n |
