Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers
Guest mod2

Matt Block/ Sadlers wrote the book, etc. etc.

Recommended Posts

Guest mod2

Bill Martin,

 

PHIL has sent you this email from

http://www.urantia-uai.org/forums/index.php.

 

 

 

Hi Bill;

 

I'm sending this to you instead of posting it.

 

The rules don't mention anything about posting something from another

UB forum BUT I think it could stir the pot so to speak.

 

I am interested in what you [and other long time readers] think on this

accusation of Matt's

that he believes he can prove with circumstantial evidence.

 

from UBRON;

 

Matt: Over the past year, in reviewing and reflecting on the Sherman

diaries (with their reports of Bill and Dr. Sadler announcing new

material in various papers, even as late as the mid 1940s) and on other

material relating to how the Urantia manuscript supposedly developed (off the

Fellowship website and other places), and analyzing my source files, I

now incline to the following, re the UB's authorship:

 

That the earliest draft of the Urantia Papers (written from 1924 to

about 1929) were written by Dr. Sadler with the possible help of his wife.

(The teenage Bill Sadler was off fighting a war in Guatemala or

somewhere during some or all of those years.) This first version was

certainly shorter and much easier to understand than the published UB. The

cosmographic plan with Paradise-Havona in the center and the seven

superuniverses radiating therefrom were probably present in the original

draft, as was the angelic hierarchy. The local universe, constellation,

system, mansion worlds, etc., were probably also laid out. Some of the

history of Urantia was also narrated. Sadlers main purpose was to

thoroughly reinterpret and adapt the Bible to modern times. He wanted to create

a sort of cosmic neo-Christianity, telling the true story of Adam and

Eve (eugenic uplifters from another planet), Lucifer, Melchizedek,

etc., and integrating all that with his evolutionary, eugenic and other

interests.

 

Bill Sadler was around for the expansion of the papers in 1929-1935,

but he might not have contributed much during this phase, except for

helping find source books for more material in Part III (which at that time

would NOT have included any of the speculative-theology- cosmology

papers) and the Jesus Papers.

 

Dr. Sadler probably produced the first draft of the Jesus Papers in

1935 or so.

 

Later, after the death of Lena Sadler in 1939, Bill really did add a

lot. The Shermans arrived in Chicago in the early 1940s and recorded Bill

and Dr. Sadler announcing a lot of new, difficult sections and papers

(i.e. Universe Levels of Reality, Supreme and Ultimate Time and

Space). Bill was probably the one who conceived and/or wrote these sections.

His two books (A Study of the Master Universe and Appendices) probably

give a lot of clues as to what he actually contributed.

 

Imagine the Urantia Book without the interwoven strands about the

Supreme, the Absolutes, the triodities, the triunities, absonite realities,

etc., and youd probably have a good idea of what the UB was like

pre-Bill.

 

So I now believe the UB, as it now stands, was mainly the result of an

amazingly productive father-son collaboration (a collaboration which

Dr. Sadler probably never expected in the earlier years), having

undergone a number of revisions and expansions. It really is a shame that the

earlier drafts were destroyed. Its also ironic that the abstract and

densely worded Foreword is the first thing to hit the readers eye, since

it really doesnt match the tone of most of the rest of the book, nor is

it representative of the subjects treated in all four parts, imo.

 

Now about Sadlers books: 2007 has been a fantastic year for Sadler

research. Thanks to Google.books.com, its now much easier to track down

sources for even his earliest books. I keep finding them even found an

important missing-link type of source for Physiology of Faith and Fear a

few days ago.

 

In order to really study Sadler, we need to track down the source books

he drew from, and see how they may have influenced his style and word

choices, etc. And just like the Urantia Papers, the more sources we

find, the better able well be to isolate (at least tentatively) the

original passages in each Sadler book.

 

I'm particularly excited at the prospect of presenting parallel charts

(or comparison charts, if you prefer) for every chapter in Mind at

Mischief and The Truth about Spiritualism. Such charts will be very

revealing. They'll show that Sadler very likely did copy a significant amount

of case material from other psychic researchers and psychiatrists. Even

Sadler's story of the Sleeping Subject has some parallels with uncited

source books.

 

I want to reread your post in a few days. Im continuing, meanwhile, to

read books on Mormonism and critical studies of Joseph Smith and the

Book of Mormon. Theres that fantastic book I told you about (By the Hand

of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion)

by that believing-Mormon scholar whose name I cant remember (oh wait,

its Terryl Givens). May UB-believing apologists someday be as compelling

and savvy as this guy is! He really is excellent. And then theres No

Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, written by a disaffected

Mormon, Fawn M. Brodie in 1945, who was excommunicated following the

publication of the book. She had been a trusted scholar in the Mormon

community and was given access to all sorts of half-buried files that told

the facts about Smith and the early movement. She was shocked and

disillusioned by what she read, but she forged on. Her book is fantastic as

well.

 

And you mentioned Walter Rea, the ex-SDA who left the fold when he

delved into Ellen White's plagiarisms. His book was okay, I thought, but

marred by his bitter and heavy-handed style.

 

Gotta go, but thanks again for sharing your pursuits.

 

Best,

 

Matt

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

Please note that Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers

has no control over the

contents of this message.

---------------------------------------------------

 

 

Regards,

 

The Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers team.

http://www.urantia-uai.org/forums/index.php

 

 

 

 

 

I would repost this and answer him, but not without running it by you guys. My answer is simple. I've always believed what Christy told me and what Doc Sadler wrote. Matthew Block's inability to believe or lack of faith is his challenge in life. The "1000 evolutionary concepts" answer the source material question.

 

This tearing down the credibility of the book really belongs back on UBRON. The self-assertion and simple "chutzpah" of Matthew has never ceased to amaze me. it really comes down to your willingness to open your being up fully to revelation, knowledge has its limits (we are not children of the Infinite Spirit) and the mortal mind is the mechanism of communication and mediation between matter and spirit, but at a cerrtain point the last two adjutants have to take over for more value to be added to meaning.

 

1136-2Reason is the understanding technique of the sciences; faith is the insight technique of religion; mota is the technique of the morontia level.

 

personally, i want to "push the envelope" and blindly feel my way towards mota with fingers of faith.Love you All B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote that the forum NOT take up the discussion of the merits and demerits of "who" wrote the book. Apparently PHIL has an interest in this. Maybe he is shy about posting this publicly on the forum, because he has an intuition that it would not be acceptable here. Maybe his post to you is a feeler. Wants to test the temperature of the forum water. Maybe he wants to talk privately about it. Maybe he has some secret doubts about the authenticity of the book. Maybe he likes more action and sparring going on. He might.

 

But the forum is about discussing the material in the book.

 

People can read all sorts of stuff elsewhere about extraneous matters, such as authorship. Tell PHIL to discuss it over on UBRON where he can find people who will get into it with him.

 

I think we should have a rule about reposting of discussions and opinions from other UB people in other UB chat rooms. Ellen (and all of us) had a problem with Rob Reno reposting from UBRON a while back. Why bring something from over there to here? It's not good to lift someone words about the UB or thier opinions from one website to another. I think it is unethical. Poor judgment in my opinion. I don't approve of the he said/she said stuff, and then try to pick it all apart.

 

In the end the forum will reflect UAI - the most principled UB organization in existence on our planet. So, let's keep the bar elevated, and in this way we will attract bright minds who want to meet to share the beauties of this fascinating book.

 

Meredith

 

Bill Martin,

 

PHIL has sent you this email from

http://www.urantia-uai.org/forums/index.php.

 

 

 

Hi Bill;

 

I'm sending this to you instead of posting it.

 

The rules don't mention anything about posting something from another

UB forum BUT I think it could stir the pot so to speak.

 

I am interested in what you [and other long time readers] think on this

accusation of Matt's

that he believes he can prove with circumstantial evidence.

 

from UBRON;

 

Matt: Over the past year, in reviewing and reflecting on the Sherman

diaries (with their reports of Bill and Dr. Sadler announcing new

 

(etc., etc., etc.,. . . .snipped)

 

I would repost this and answer him, but not without running it by you guys. My answer is simple. I've always believed what Christy told me and what Doc Sadler wrote. Matthew Block's inability to believe or lack of faith is his challenge in life. The "1000 evolutionary concepts" answer the source material question.

 

This tearing down the credibility of the book really belongs back on UBRON. The self-assertion and simple "chutzpah" of Matthew has never ceased to amaze me. it really comes down to your willingness to open your being up fully to revelation, knowledge has its limits (we are not children of the Infinite Spirit) and the mortal mind is the mechanism of communication and mediation between matter and spirit, but at a cerrtain point the last two adjutants have to take over for more value to be added to meaning.

 

1136-2Reason is the understanding technique of the sciences; faith is the insight technique of religion; mota is the technique of the morontia level.

 

personally, i want to "push the envelope" and blindly feel my way towards mota with fingers of faith.Love you All B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Meredith.

 

admin

 

I vote that the forum NOT take up the discussion of the merits and demerits of "who" wrote the book. Apparently PHIL has an interest in this. Maybe he is shy about posting this publicly on the forum, because he has an intuition that it would not be acceptable here. Maybe his post to you is a feeler. Wants to test the temperature of the forum water. Maybe he wants to talk privately about it. Maybe he has some secret doubts about the authenticity of the book. Maybe he likes more action and sparring going on. He might.

 

But the forum is about discussing the material in the book.

 

People can read all sorts of stuff elsewhere about extraneous matters, such as authorship. Tell PHIL to discuss it over on UBRON where he can find people who will get into it with him.

 

I think we should have a rule about reposting of discussions and opinions from other UB people in other UB chat rooms. Ellen (and all of us) had a problem with Rob Reno reposting from UBRON a while back. Why bring something from over there to here? It's not good to lift someone words about the UB or thier opinions from one website to another. I think it is unethical. Poor judgment in my opinion. I don't approve of the he said/she said stuff, and then try to pick it all apart.

 

In the end the forum will reflect UAI - the most principled UB organization in existence on our planet. So, let's keep the bar elevated, and in this way we will attract bright minds who want to meet to share the beauties of this fascinating book.

 

Meredith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest U-rantian

Dear Bill and all

 

Thank you Bill for sharing with the moderator team what you received. Please reply to Phil that those matters are of not interest in this forum.

 

;)

U-rantian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. This is to talk about the Urantia BOok from a "Cosmic" perspective and not another source to descredit the book.

I agree with you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mod2

Well folks,

 

That looks like consensus to me. Thank You for your replies.

 

 

Bill Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...