Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers
Federico Folchi

How were the Documents written?

Recommended Posts

The Urantia Foundation has a website " A History of the Urantia Movement" By Dr. William S. Sadler where Sadler outlines everything that happened.

 

And under the section entitled "Receiving the Completed Papers"

he said "The first three parts were completed and certified to us in A.D. 1934. The Jesus Papers were not so delivered to us until 1935"

 

But it's not clear what "completed and certified" means if new human source material was still being added as late as 1942. I would understand "completed and certified" to mean authoritatively finished, but it seems that wasn't so. So what did Dr. Sadler mean by "completed and certified"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
February 11 -- Part IV -- the "Jesus Papers" -- delivered. Note: This is the anniversary of the arrival of Jesus' Thought Adjuster

 

Yeah, I was right. Part III arrived just before Part IV, which means probably sometime in January 1935, just as I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just found this:

 

Reception of first three parts of The Urantia Book--118 Papers--complete. However, the Forum kept going over these papers and asking questions so the Revelators could clarify their expressions to be more understandable to the mortal mind. The Forum went through all the papers at least three times. To estimate the time involved consider 118 papers completely gone through three times, one paper a week, 42 weeks a year (allowing for no meetings during the peak summer heat). Paper 119 came through in 1935 just before the entire Part IV was delivered complete--typewritten, justified, punctuated and capitalized. (urantiabook.org/archive/history/h_timlin_3.htm)

 

Looks like Paper 119, The Bestowals of Christ Michael, held things up until 1935.

 

That is kind of interesting; about Paper 119, because I always had the feeling that it sure looks like it belonged at the front of Part IV rather than the close of Part III

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's not clear what "completed and certified" means if new human source material was still being added as late as 1942. I would understand "completed and certified" to mean authoritatively finished, but it seems that wasn't so. So what did Dr. Sadler mean by "completed and certified"?

 

I'm guessing that Sadler is referring to the process in which the papers appeared, were read over, questioned and sent back for clarification. I think that process took a long time before the final copy appeared as completed. Certified means that they arrived at a standard or level that the contact commission and the revelatory commission agreed upon.

 

Why was material being added up until 1942? I think that I read somewhere that around that time Sadler and son tried to write their own Foreword to Part I. The revelators nixed it and wrote their own saying, "A city cannot be lit by a candle."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That question; Why was material being added to material that had been delivered complete, certified, etc, back in 1934 and 1935; is the same question that Harold Sherman was asking back in 1942.

 

Sherman's attempt at getting answers, resulted with the so called "Sherman Rebellion" See Ernest Moyer's "The Birth of a Divine Revelation"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherman had his hissy fit because the Papers did not include discussions of psychic phenomena which would strengthen the foundation of his personal beliefs, so he decided to attack it. Since he previously admitted that TUB was true and divinely indited, he had no choice but to attack a flesh and blood person. Sherman was a delusional occultist, and in my opinion, an opportunist probably motivated by subconscious resentment of Sadler. That being said, I also don't think he was all that bright, or at least blinded by his own ambitions. If you read the revelation carefully, psychic phenomenon is explained rather clearly, just not in the way Sherman wanted it explained because it didn't line up with his delusional ideation. So what does a person like that typically do in a circumstance like that? Project on other people. He attempted to turn Sadler into the evil, perverted twister of truth instead. (Just like Judas) It's the same every time you see it. Human psychology at its very worst. And to think that Sadler openly befriended this most unfriendly person . . . just like Jesus . . . yet another excellent example of evil connected to an Epochal Revelation. I think we'll probably see this with every revelation until humans catch on or Caligastia finally gets the boot.

 

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that I read somewhere that around that time Sadler and son tried to write their own Foreword

to Part I. The revelators nixed it and wrote their own saying, "A city cannot be lit by a candle."

Bonita, as a true Foreword fan, this made my day -- such intensity of insight, and luminosity ;)

Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherman had his hissy fit because the Papers did not include discussions of psychic phenomena which would strengthen the foundation of his personal beliefs, so he decided to attack it. Since he previously admitted that TUB was true and divinely indited, he had no choice but to attack a flesh and blood person. Sherman was a delusional occultist, and in my opinion, an opportunist probably motivated by subconscious resentment of Sadler. That being said, I also don't think he was all that bright, or at least blinded by his own ambitions. If you read the revelation carefully, psychic phenomenon is explained rather clearly, just not in the way Sherman wanted it explained because it didn't line up with his delusional ideation. So what does a person like that typically do in a circumstance like that? Project on other people. He attempted to turn Sadler into the evil, perverted twister of truth instead. (Just like Judas) It's the same every time you see it. Human psychology at its very worst. And to think that Sadler openly befriended this most unfriendly person . . . just like Jesus . . . yet another excellent example of evil connected to an Epochal Revelation. I think we'll probably see this with every revelation until humans catch on or Caligastia finally gets the boot.

 

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

 

You may well be correct in your assessment of (the negative side of ) Harold Sherman.

But, the reason that I brought up his name, was that he became aware of something that didn't seem quite right, with what was going on with the Urantia Papers, back in 1942. One night when Christie was over at the Shermans place for dinner, she mentioned that Sherman should write down his concerns on paper and that, they could be presented to the higher ups for their consideration.

Many years later, Ernest Moyer, through his extensive research picks up and takes the whole matter a heck of a lot further. See pages 367 - 369 of his book "The Birth of a Divine Revelation" His contention is that after Sadlers' wife Lena passed away in 1939, Sadler may have lost a very important stabilizing influence. Moyer also believes that he sleeping subject also may have passed away about the same time, and that Christie started to become the conduit for information, directions, etc. between the "higher ups" and Sadler

Quote from page 369 (from Moyers book) "Sherman was logically correct. How could it be a divine Revelation if it were subject to continuous arbitrary changes ? "

 

 

So Moyer says that Sherman's arrival at the forum in 1942, and his actions may have stopped any further "adjustments"

to the Papers.

Note: Moyer also shared many of your comments re; Sherman

 

 

P.S. Sherman wasn't really 100% deluded and led by evil forces. Behind all of those faults Moyer, and others have described; Behind it all, he had a pure heart.

Edited by menno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S. Sherman wasn't really 100% deluded and led by evil forces. Behind all of those faults Moyer, and others have described; Behind it all, he had a pure heart.

 

So far everything you've said is speculative except this last statement. Sherman may have had a pure heart at one time but he had a corrupt and vile subconscious which he persistently allowed to dictate his conscious life. He was ill-educated, self-absorbed and given to phantasms of imagined psychic powers, believing that he was destined to head his own group of seven spiritual psychic leaders. After his run in with Sadler, he kept feeding the fire of spite and malice and culminated years of perversion into outright hatred through his books. Did you read the diaries and letters? Those are absolute evidence of a person driven by a serious amount of subtle subconscious resentment. I recognized it right away, having been victimized by it myself once. I'm absolutely certain of what I'm seeing. Granted, I was not there personally. I never met any of the personalities involved, but I didn't meet Judas in person either. Don't have to. The same human weaknesses are in all of us to one degree or another.

 

Personally, I don't care if the Midwayers had one hundred different sleeping subjects. I also don't care if messages that appeared out of nowhere on paper in abandoned offices were really written by Midwayers or some secretly incarnated Melchizedek. I even don't care if the Papers are of purely human source. They're simply just damn good stuff no matter where they came from, who they came from or how they got here. You know, in all honesty, I still can't figure out how they make a picture show up on my TV screen. I know some basic physics, but it's still a marvelous mystery to me because I really don't care. The fact that it's there is all I care about. I can judge whether what I see, hear and read is worthy of my attention or not, I don't have to understand every little nuance of how it got there. I personally see it as a waste of precious time. But that's just me. Everyone has their own pet peeves and personal interests. That's what makes this life so interesting.

 

Do I think Sadler finagled the Papers? NO. But even if he did, it wouldn't change the value of them for me because I read the book as a spiritual work. There are different levels of reading works like this. You get out of it what you're looking for. If you're looking for errors, fault and fraud, you'll find it. If you're looking for science, you'll find it. If you're looking for philosophy, you'll find it. If you're looking for history, you'll find it. If you're looking for civics, you'll find it. If you're looking for truth, beauty and goodness, you'll find it. It's a great work; I think we can all agree on that. It has everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moyer seem's to be the guy wearing the red-hat, etleast thats the opinion of well respected member's, so I will just trust their insight and leave the rest alone. It's impossible to know everything that happened, etleast in this life time.

 

The 5th epochal revelation will stand on it's own merit as unique and like no other written work in the history of humankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I even don't care if the Papers are of purely human source. They're simply just damn good stuff no matter where they came from, who they came from or how they got here. You know, in all honesty, I still can't figure out how they make a picture show up on my TV screen. I know some basic physics, but it's still a marvelous mystery to me because I really don't care. The fact that it's there is all I care about. I can judge whether what I see, hear and read is worthy of my attention or not, I don't have to understand every little nuance of how it got there. I personally see it as a waste of precious time. But that's just me. Everyone has their own pet peeves and personal interests. That's what makes this life so interesting.

 

If the Papers are of purely human source then they are not what they say they are, and therefore a lie. I believe that fact has implications for their spiritual significance. In my opinion, it would surely be a waste of time to study a lie as if it were truth for years and years. The images on your television screen don't purport to be anything but entertainment delivered to you by a technology that is no secret. You are free to learn all you want about it. The UB, in contrast, is a book that claims to disclose truths to which no mortal is privy. It was made available to us by methods that have been carefully and systematically hidden.

 

There are many different kinds of books. Some are written to entertain us, or to move us, or to inspire us. The origin of these sorts of books doesn't matter much. When a book is written to tell us previously unknown truths, its origin cannot be ignored. The reason for that is very simple: There is no reason to believe previously unknown (alleged) truths unless there is reason to believe that the author or authors were in a position to know them. If the previously unknown (alleged) truths are of a sort that no mortal human could be in a position to know then their credibility rests upon the author being something other than a mortal human. To assert that it makes no difference whether the Papers are of purely human source is to say that it makes no difference whether alleged truths that no mortal human is in a position to know were in fact composed entirely by a mortal human.

 

I don't think that Harold Sherman showed that the Papers are not what they say they are, nor do I think he wanted to show any such thing. It does appear that he wanted to show that they were corrupted by the Contact Commission, perhaps unwittingly. His reason for wanting to show this may well have been a massive instance of cognitive dissonance upon reading a Revelation that lent precious little support to ideas to which he had dedicated his life. If there's any single thing we've learned about human psychology in the past 60 years, it's that cognitive dissonance, and the confirmation bias that enables us to reduce is, are very powerful forces. The more publicly and stridently we commit ourselves to any idea, the more acute the dissonance when we confront anything that threatens it, and the more our thinking and even perception will become distorted to enable us to cling to that idea.

 

Everything I know about Sherman suggests that he was deeply in the grip of these psychological forces. I can relate to that, since I struggle with my own cognitive dissonance with the UB--not the same as Sherman's but just as strong. So, for that matter, do all the UB readers who set the logical bar very very high for anything that appears critical of the UB, but very low for anything that seems to support it.

 

What makes Dr. Sadler such an interesting figure is the fact that he was publicly and vociferously opposed to any sort of "channeling" phenomena, as we would describe them today. On the other hand, he was a True Believer in the revelatory authenticity of Ellen G. White's various visions and "guidings." I wonder how many UB readers have also read The Desire of Ages, Ellen White's "revealed" biography of Jesus. I mention it not to try to draw any parallels between the UB and SDA teachings but simply to point out that Dr. Sadler must have been a somewhat conflicted man.

 

It's easy to find skeptics who are prepared to debunk any and all religious claims, as well as any and all paranormal phenomena. It's also easy to find people who are prepared to believe all manner of religious and paranormal claims. It would not have been easy to find someone who was both stubbornly skeptical of popular paranormal phenomena of the time but also open to the very idea of revelation. In that sense, Dr. Sadler was one in a million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To assert that it makes no difference whether the Papers are of purely human source is to say that it makes no difference whether alleged truths that no mortal human is in a position to know were in fact composed entirely by a mortal human.

 

Who made such an assertion? If you're talking about me then you should go back and read my post again. I said, "I even don't care if the Papers are of purely human source. They're simply just damn good stuff no matter where they came from, who they came from or how they got here." I'll repeat, "I don't care, with a huge emphasis on the word "I". You can care all you want, but I do not care and I'm not making any assertions about how much caring others should do. That's a matter of personal choice.

 

It makes no difference to me if the authors lied or not. There's truth in the book and I'm able to find it just like I can find it in other books that lie, like the Bible. Hardly any of the chapters of the Bible were written by the people they claim wrote them and it's chock full of myth and fantasy . . . but there is truth in there too. All the channeled works out there are not written by celestial beings either, they're all lies, but you will find some truth in them as well, that is, if you're looking for truth. Listen, if you're wired to be a skeptic, then that's the way you are. I'm not a skeptic nor am I a gullible fool, and belief has nothing at all to do with it. It's about faith, faith in TRUTH. Either you recognize truth and accept it, or you don't.

 

Cognitive dissonance is a problem TUB speaks about, it's nothing new at all. It was one of the biggest problems Jesus had to deal with among his own apostles. Cognitive dissonance is what happens when one realizes that some or all of the mental framework one constructed is erroneous. It's a shocker for sure. But it requires faith to allow the new to replace the old and a lot of people are weak in the faith department. Faith takes a lot of courage and most people are not that courageous, especially when it comes to changing the way they think. Thought Adjusters have their work cut out for them, that's for sure. It's generally a very gradual process lest the entire psychic equilibrium be put on end, that is, unless you're 100% devoted to doing God's will . . . then it's easy. (Likewise, the "indifference" of the sleeping subject was a mental state that the revelators deemed fortuitous.) Sherman was in conflict with himself and probably with his own Thought Adjuster too, which makes the fruits of his mental state evil (untrue), and unworthy of my personal consideration.

 

p1459:04 There is never conflict between true knowledge and truth. There may be conflict between knowledge and human beliefs, beliefs colored with prejudice, distorted by fear, and dominated by the
dread of facing new facts of material discovery or spiritual progress.

 

p1260:2 115:1.1 If mind cannot fathom conclusions,
if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate
conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception,
erroneous to a greater or lesser degree
.

 

100:4.2 Religious perplexities are inevitable;
there can be no growth without psychic conflict and spiritual agitation
. The organization of a philosophic standard of living entails considerable commotion in the philosophic realms of the mind. Loyalties are not exercised in behalf of the great, the good, the true, and the noble without a struggle. Effort is attendant upon clarification of spiritual vision and enhancement of cosmic insight.
And the human intellect protests against being weaned from subsisting upon the nonspiritual energies of temporal existence
. The slothful animal mind rebels at the effort required to wrestle with cosmic problem solving.

 

133:7.12 The human mind does not well stand the conflict of double allegiance. It is a severe strain on the soul to undergo the experience of an effort to serve both good and evil. The supremely happy and efficiently unified mind is the one wholly dedicated to the doing of the will of the Father in heaven.
Unresolved conflicts destroy unity and may terminate in mind disruption
. But the survival character of a soul is not fostered by attempting to secure peace of mind at any price, by the surrender of noble aspirations, and by the compromise of spiritual ideals; rather is such
peace attained by the stalwart assertion of the triumph of that which is true
, and this victory is achieved in the overcoming of evil with the potent force of good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I have alway's seen it is that the contact commision were just pawn's used by the revelator's to copy and paste this document, nothing more.

Alot of these people seemed to have gotten pretty mixed up after they read the 5th epochal revelation and some even thought they could communicate with midwayer's etc. I care how the book was written, but I dont care what the opinion's of Sadler and friends where/are.

 

Sadler and friends were put in a position of extreme power and with power there is corruption and I suspect that alot of these individuals had to battle their own ego's for the rest of their lives'. I still believe that the revelator's made them copy and paste the book down as it was written, while keeping a close eye on them to make sure they could do this. Surley they had the competance to etleast get that one simple task right, I wouldn't be surprised if after this was done maybe in the late 1950's somebody was contacted by a rebel midwayer or rebel being. It seem's like a few of them wanted to have their own supernatural experience and I am sure a rebell being would be more than glad to fascilitate that experience.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes no difference to me if the authors lied or not. There's truth in the book and I'm able to find it just like I can find it in other books that lie, like the Bible.

 

The UB has a lot to say about things that you are in no position to know for yourself. I think I made it quite clear in my previous message that I was speaking of those things. With respect to those things, does it matter to you whether or not the UB lies about itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the gist of what you're saying, boom. But there are no more rebel Midwayers. As far as I know, Caligastia is the only one left capable of messing with peoples' minds and even then the person has to really, really want it. I think Sherman's mind fell into the same kind of trap that Judas' mind fell into. Talk about the mind at mischief, huh?

 

53:8.6 Caligastia, your apostate Planetary Prince, is still free on Urantia to prosecute his nefarious designs, but he has absolutely no power to enter the minds of men, neither can he draw near to their souls to tempt or corrupt them
unless they really desire to be cursed with his wicked presence
.

 

77:7.8 The entire group of rebel midwayers is at present held prisoner by order of the Most Highs of Edentia.
No more do they roam this world on mischief bent.

 

 

P.S. Did you know that the word "etleast" does not appear in any dictionary? That reminds me of a few words I learned from my parents that shocked the bejeebers out of me when I finally got to school. For instance, according to my father, he went to "wornk" every day and fished in a "crick". It was a long time before I realized that the words I learned in school were the same words my parents were using. My mother always called the thing that connects your head to your body, the "troth" (mine was always sore). We took out the "thrash" every Tuesday night and watched smoke come out the "chimminey". "Crackases" "blummed" in the Spring and "Al-baney" was the capital of NY. And Granny's best friend had "fireballs of the eucharist" removed (fibroids of the uterus). So, please don't be offended that I told you that "etleast" is not a word; "at least" we all come by it honestly. I still say "crick" because it reminds me of Dad. There's one in my backyard with tree frogs and egrets. A lovely place where the crackases blum in the Spring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UB has a lot to say about things that you are in no position to know for yourself. I think I made it quite clear in my previous message that I was speaking of those things. With respect to those things, does it matter to you whether or not the UB lies about itself?

 

Not at all. I'm not the least bit concerned about it, but that's primarily because I don't have much interest in those parts of the book. The parts I connect with are the parts that I have personally experienced, and those parts line up very nicely with those experiences.

 

If I was reading it like a text book, had to take an exam, write a paper or teach a class on it, maybe it would bother me. But fortunately I don't have to do any of those things. I read for pleasure. How 'bout you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I have horrible spelling, I dropped out of university though to be a plumber so what can yea do :). Also I don't use spell check as you can tell :) I do think the authneticity of the book is important, I just don't think Moyer and the other motley crew of journalist's that covered this story really have any idea what happened. I don't even think Sadler fully know's what happened with the sleeping subject. I think something happened between midwayer's and the sleeping subject's thought adjuster but there doesn't seem to be any verifiable way to prove any of it.

 

So all I can do is take fact's the u.b say's are true and stand them up against the fact's that are coming out now. I will even look at fact's people say are not true and take a look at them. Infact I am probably just as interested in scientific argument's against the u.b as I am of scientific finding's that support the U.B because I truly don't believe there are error's in this manner.

 

Of coarse having the U.B spelled out and spoke in a dream at 16 the only thing I had to disprove was if infact alien's were abducting me at night and trying to indoctrinate me with their alien bible haha once I got passed that hurdle it was smooth sailing I never questioned whether the book had a divine source.

 

Yea I do think people have strange experience's where they hear voice's and it seem's to happen alot, It's possible that some people who "meditate" induce a subconciounce hallucination where they are cognitavely aware of themselve's to a degree while they mingle with their subconcounce hallucination. hahah I am no doctor though so I can't say for sure. Yes I know I spelled subconciounce wrong lol.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey boom,

 

You sound pretty intelligent to me. I lost the ability to spell after my head injury. Used to be a real ace at one time. Not anymore. Spell check pops up automatically on my 'puter, thank God for that.

 

I understand why people are so concerned about proving the validity of TUB. I remember when I first found it, I was blown away by the first paragraph. I had to put that thing down right away, and I agree that the first thing that came to mind is . . . Holy Cow! There really are aliens out there. That rocked my world for a while and then the skajillion types of celestial beings . . . way over the top . . . way over.

 

Really, all I cared about is that the book agreed with me on a couple of issues that I had already decided about in my own mind. When I read it in print, I couldn't believe it. It was like someone had read my mind and decided to lay it all out in black and white. I was certain, back in my teens, that the Creation story was only half true and had imagined it almost exactly like TUB laid it out. I was absolutely certain there was no flood and more than 100% sure that the Adam and Eve story was wrong. I did not believe in Lucifer at the time and thought he was entirely man-made, so that was a little eye-opening. But to this day, I don't really buy, hook line and sinker, the story of the the twins, Sangik races, the tree of life or even all the details about Adam and Eve. I think there is myth intertwined in some of that, waiting for further enlightenment in ages to come because it would be detrimental to disclose everything right now.

 

I don't think it's wise to reveal everything at once and I believe that mankind needs a certain amount of mystery and myth. All the spooky stuff surrounding the Papers serves to augment both, and for good reason, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the story of the the twins, Sangik races, the tree of life or even all the details about Adam and Eve.[/quote

 

How come? You don't believe in the ability for animal's to suddenly undergo a phase change? As it appear's that's what urantia book is describing with the Twins and Sangik Races.

 

Chris Halvorson had a good description of this phase change process that I really agreed with, you should check out what he wrote about this subject maybe he will convince you. He goes into some of this process here...

 

http://www.perfectinghorizons.org/QandA/scientub.pdf

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, but nah . . . I'm enough of a scientist to know how far fetched it all is . . . statistically speaking. I'm not buying it, but I'm not saying it's a lie either. I'm saying that there's more to it than they've explained, probably due to revelation limitations. Don't know for sure. It's all too convenient from my perspective. I also don't think it distracts from the overall message of the book, which I accept wholeheartedly. But you can understand why I can't join any of the Urantia groups out there. I'm really an outlier when it comes to these things. I also don't have any problem with anyone else accepting those issues, without question, as presented . Like I said, it makes a neat, tidy little package, easy to swallow and quite satisfying to most. I, however, cannot swallow it, but I'll chew on it for another couple decades . . . no problem. I have good jaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I was reading it like a text book, had to take an exam, write a paper or teach a class on it, maybe it would bother me. But fortunately I don't have to do any of those things. I read for pleasure. How 'bout you?

 

For as long as I can remember, I have been preoccupied with certain questions, including the basic question of just what kind of universe this really is. I won't bore you with the various ways I've tried to find answers, but the UB is one of them. The UB tells us that mortal life is the larval stage of something called the "ascension career." It's described in considerable detail, as you know. It is not something that I or any other mortal is in a position to know by means of our own resources. So if the UB is of purely human origin, there's no particular reason to believe any of that. Even if it "rings true" to me, that's not a reason to suppose it is true. There is no good reason to think the "ring of truth" always or even usually leads us to truth. There is plenty of reason to think that it often leads us to what we wish were true.

 

If the UB is what it says it is, then it's important, to me anyway. If it's not, then it's interesting and enjoyable (albeit sometimes a bit tedious), but not important at all. That's how I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sort of in the same boat as you Todd, in that if I thought human's wrote it I wouldn't waste my time reading it. If I thought I was reading something from Elron Hubbard I would stop, hahaha. I take all the concept's and teaching's as literlaly as possible because of the my belief in it being authored by the being's that are claimed to have authored it.

Edited by boomshuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For as long as I can remember, I have been preoccupied with certain questions, including the basic question of just what kind of universe this really is. I won't bore you with the various ways I've tried to find answers, but the UB is one of them. The UB tells us that mortal life is the larval stage of something called the "ascension career." It's described in considerable detail, as you know. It is not something that I or any other mortal is in a position to know by means of our own resources. So if the UB is of purely human origin, there's no particular reason to believe any of that. Even if it "rings true" to me, that's not a reason to suppose it is true. There is no good reason to think the "ring of truth" always or even usually leads us to truth. There is plenty of reason to think that it often leads us to what we wish were true.

 

If the UB is what it says it is, then it's important, to me anyway. If it's not, then it's interesting and enjoyable (albeit sometimes a bit tedious), but not important at all. That's how I read it.

 

So, are you saying that if TUB proves to be a fraud you'll no longer believe in an afterlife . . . you'll just give up on that whole idea? You need some kind of proof that it exists before you'll allow yourself to believe in it?

 

You see, I think this is the problem with most people, especially in this modern scientific age. They want proof. Not that the folks in Jesus' time didn't want proof too, what with all the miracle working he had to do. Then there was that whole resurrection phenomenon that convinced hundreds of people that there was an afterlife and started the world's largest religion. But most of that was hearsay, one person telling another. Now we're so far removed from the event, it seems totally unreal and impersonal. But, that's precisely why he sent his Spirit of Truth. You see, if it's really truth that you're seeking and not just wishful thinking, the whole reason you're seeking it in the first place is because there is residing in you the very source of Truth himself. It is God who creates the desire for truth within you. It's not just some fanciful whim that you created all by yourself. So, you shouldn't even be bothering with books if you want the truth. You should go straight to the Source.

 

It must be such a disappointment to Jesus/Michael to realize that so many people are too spiritually dense to have an ongoing and very real personal relationship with him through his Spirit of Truth, who would destroy all doubt. I'm guessing that Part IV was added for a specific reason. If the Spirit of Truth can only function in those individuals who accept the bestowal mission of Jesus, then it's hie time to reintroduce the purpose of that bestowal mission again so people can connect with Michael/Spirit of Truth and stop looking for other forms of proof. Like . . . contact with the spiritual world.

 

If TUB's proven to be a lie, I will still believe in Jesus. I'll still believe in everything he said and did, even if it's two thousand year old hearsay. I'll still believe that he's here with me now and I'll still believe that there's a purpose for me and for all other men and women. I'll still believe in an afterlife and a purpose to that afterlife. I'll still believe that there are angels and other friendly spirit beings who are dedicated to truth, beauty and goodness and to helping all of us. I will still believe that all people are endowed with a spark of the divine, because I know that I am and I am no different or more loved than anyone else. In fact, I never needed TUB to tell me any of this or convince me of it. And, when I go back and read books written on the subject of faith and religion by those who wrote before TUB, I find the same truths. These are archetypal truths in the minds of men and women that have been evolving over the centuries. If it's all lies, then we are all in the same lie together, and that's not a bad thing either.

 

So, "ringing true" has value. Can the professor in you get up in front of your students and say, "I think such and such is valid because it rings true"? No you can't. But what about the real you? Can you accept that there is such a thing as a "truth detector" within your mind and soul? Can you accept that you even have a soul? Did you ever think that this truth detector might be a person?

 

You see, whenever I say that Truth is a person, it causes earthquakes in people's psyches. That is, unless you've actually developed a relationship with this person yourself, then you just smile and agree because the experience is there. Of course, on an intellectual level, it makes no sense; there's nothing to sink your teeth into. On a spiritual level it goes beyond making sense. It is an actual experiential reality. So, if you can't do that, if you can't come to the point where you no longer need books and testimonies, if you can't find the truth within you, with only your naked self, then you'll never be completely satisfied with anything or anybody who claims to "know". You'll continue to need some kind of proof. But sadly, the only proof you'll ever find is evident within the lives of those who have been transformed by the presence of Truth in their souls, yourself included. You'll never find that in a book . . . never . . . no matter how hard you look. You need the religious experience first . . . then read the book to back it up and fill it out. You're never going to have a religious experience from reading a book. Yah gotta pray.

 

Now, if the book puts you in the mood to pray . . . then go for it. A lot of Christian contemplatives use this method; it's called Lectio Divina. It has its place . . . I've tried it and it works, more or less. You can do the same thing with TUB, especially the Jesus Papers. But what I'm saying is that other people's words are never the same as your own words spoken to the divine Deity within you, regardless of how you envision that Deity. And, as far as I'm concerned, that's the only way to become certain about any of this stuff. The only things you can be absolutely certain about are things you've personally experienced; and chances are, you'll never be able to prove any of them to anyone else . . . which is exactly where you find yourself with the TUB validity issue. It can't be proven to you as valid because it did not come about as part of your personal experience. You weren't there. None of us were. We weren't there at the resurrection either . . . same thing. You have to experience your own personal resurrection in order to know with certainty that it's real. Until then, it's faith.

 

Likewise, until you find your own sleeping subject, until you find a packet of papers on your desk with answers to all the questions you've been secreting in your mind, you're never going to know with certainty that this phenomenon is real. And I'm sure that even then, you'll have your doubts, just like Sadler. Within the inner experience between man and God there is no mystery, but there will always be a certain amount of mystery at the interface between the two worlds, the spiritual and physical.

 

1:4.7 As a reality in human spiritual experience God is not a mystery. But when an attempt is made to make plain the realities of the spirit world to the physical minds of the material order, mystery appears: mysteries so subtle and so profound that only the faith-grasp of the God-knowing mortal can achieve the philosophic miracle of the recognition of the Infinite by the finite, the discernment of the eternal God by the evolving mortals of the material worlds of time and space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, are you saying that if TUB proves to be a fraud you'll no longer believe in an afterlife . . . you'll just give up on that whole idea? You need some kind of proof that it exists before you'll allow yourself to believe in it?

 

I avoid the word "proof" outside of the formal contexts of mathematical and deductive reasoning. But I like to have evidence for my beliefs. So, if the UB is a fraud, I won't necessarily reject the whole concept of afterlife, but I will no longer take the UB's particular conception of it seriously. The UB isn't the only source of evidence of afterlife. See this book, for example, for a fair and balanced discussion of various forms of evidence.

 

You see, I think this is the problem with most people, especially in this modern scientific age. They want proof. Not that the folks in Jesus' time didn't want proof too, what with all the miracle working he had to do. Then there was that whole resurrection phenomenon that convinced hundreds of people that there was an afterlife and started the world's largest religion. But most of that was hearsay, one person telling another. Now we're so far removed from the event, it seems totally unreal and impersonal.

 

Again, setting aside the red herring concept of proof, eyewitness testimony has evidential value. In Christian apologetics, there are two general approaches, the "presuppositionalist" and "evidentialist". The latter approach typically starts with the gospels and epistles of Paul as actual historical documents and works from there. Bauckham's book is a very careful analysis of the gospels as eyewitness testimony documents. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not talking about Biblical inerrancy or "inspiration" or anything of the sort. I'm simply pointing out that without presupposing any particular theology, the case can be made, and is made, that those documents count as evidence for the occurrence of something remarkable, namely the death and resurrection of Jesus. They are certainly not proof. The resurrection of Jesus is not itself proof of an afterlife for mortals either, but it is evidence, since the same documents tell us something about the teachings of Jesus. We may say that the teachings of someone who rose from the dead have greater credibility than they would otherwise have.

 

I have some difficulties with this particular form of apologetics, but the broad outlines of it make sense to me. The documents of the New Testament are, for the most part, documents that we have some sort of historical handle on. The UB, in constrast, is a "book from nowhere". That is, it's a book that "materialized" in Chicago in the 1930s, by a process concerning which many details have been carefully hidden from us. This makes it a fundamentally different kind of text. It's not supposed to be a human record of encounters with something transcendent but perhaps imperfectly understood and expressed. It's supposed to be a superhuman account of transcendent realities. As such, it is more comparable to the Book of Mormon or the Holy Koran. So, regarding any of these books, it seems to me entirely appropriate to ask whether the book really is what it claims to be. And if that question is to be asked, the responsible thing to do is to seek evidence for the right answer.

 

I don't see it as a problem at all to want evidence for one's beliefs. On the contrary, I think this is the responsible way to use the intellects that we are endowed with. I think all of us, myself included, are far too willing to believe all manner of things on the basis of scanty evidence.

 

But, that's precisely why he sent his Spirit of Truth. You see, if it's really truth that you're seeking and not just wishful thinking, the whole reason you're seeking it in the first place is because there is residing in you the very source of Truth himself. It is God who creates the desire for truth within you. It's not just some fanciful whim that you created all by yourself. So, you shouldn't even be bothering with books if you want the truth. You should go straight to the Source.

 

I haven't had much success with this approach.

 

So, "ringing true" has value. Can the professor in you get up in front of your students and say, "I think such and such is valid because it rings true"? No you can't. But what about the real you? Can you accept that there is such a thing as a "truth detector" within your mind and soul? Can you accept that you even have a soul? Did you ever think that this truth detector might be a person?

 

I can accept the possibility of these things, but I have no direct knowledge of them. Moreover, I have found that people are entirely too willing to appeal to their inner "truth detector" to justify all manner of things that don't look the least bit true to me. And a lot of very prayerful people believe a lot of things that can't all be true.

 

You need the religious experience first . . . then read the book to back it up and fill it out. You're never going to have a religious experience from reading a book. Yah gotta pray.

 

I'm reluctant to discuss my experiences with prayer. I don't think they have any relevance to anyone but myself. Suffice it to say that if they were positive, I'd still be doing it.

 

Likewise, until you find your own sleeping subject, until you find a packet of papers on your desk with answers to all the questions you've been secreting in your mind, you're never going to know with certainty that this phenomenon is real. And I'm sure that even then, you'll have your doubts, just like Sadler. Within the inner experience between man and God there is no mystery, but there will always be a certain amount of mystery at the interface between the two worlds, the spiritual and physical.

 

I can live with that. This is the human condition, it seems to me. We just don't know. Some are endowed with faith, it seems, and others are not.

I don't know if that other world is there or not and I don't find it within myself to believe in it just because it's somehow spiritually appealing to me. It hasn't been revealed to me. It would be simple enough to pack it in and say enough's enough, but I'm not comfortable with that either. The confidence of materialists is just as perplexing to me as the confidence of the faithful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, that's precisely why he sent his Spirit of Truth.

Todd, I believe Bonita may be on target: but it takes a deeply personal opening

to allow the technique of truth to trigger assurance ("personality assurance").

 

PS: To help put this in context, it looks (at least from where I sit) like humans are

a technique for embedding a family of personality (the primal substance) into the

fabric of the Supreme. A subsequent transfinite propagation through the absonite

gets us, as Persons, to the place from where we can attempt subinfinite penetration

of the absolute. And that's when Dad sees the fruit of his (eons-long? momentary?)

labors, the fulfilment of His plan to make mortal man "in our own image."

[(78.3) 6:5.7], [(85.5) 7:4.4], [(110.7) 10:3.1].

 

By repeating that stated plan 3 times, I get the feeling they hope to make a point :)

 

Nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...