Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?

[Turtle]

I went ahead on my own creating a new thread; let's hope I got it right enough. :phones: http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/14313-urantia-book-complications-contradictions.html#post209212

[OutsideTheBox]

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. :evil:

 

 

Not sure whether to take this as sarcasm or otherwise humor. You've discerned by this point, no doubt, that it's not my view the Urantia Book was borne of deceipt. I, personally, am not a deceiver and don't engage in deceipt. Of that I can assure you... ;)

 

I would simply suggest this apparent divisiveness is no more than a writer's device for obfuscation of the author's identity. There is a lot in the book that I find good plot in a fiction, but make me puke when otherwise classified.

 

Such a suggestion is worthy of consideration. Alternatively, however, it is quite presumptuous to determine so out of hand (presenting the appearance of divisiveness for purpose of obfuscating authorship) without first evaluating Sadler's history. The man's history, to me, appears to not have a trace that I can see which meets the threshold for ascribing to him motive for perpetration of such a hoax. I would suggest that you should have written '... could be no more...' instead of '...is no more...' if you have an open mind prior to evaluating the history objectively. There can be no doubt of one thing - if Sadler hoaxed TUB he would in the final analysis have been sealing his own fate as a man who lived an incredibly large lie for many many decades. His history prior to becoming involved in the Urantia Papers (antecedent to the book) is entirely at odds with someone who would perpetrate such fraud on his fellow man, and perhaps as importantly, would take the sacriligious actions in affront to God that the hoaxing author of the Urantia Book did.

 

Presuming it a hoax that Sadler participated in would mandate, commensurately, the following conclusion (in my view): That Sadler, who was an undeniably religious man, who unabashedly believed in the Bible (through the prism of a SDA early in his life), and provided great respect to religious leaders he perceived as genuinely spiritually insightful suddenly decided that he would make all kinds of incredibly detailed garbage to mislead the masses to believe in God using information diametrically opposed (in some cases) to the Bible. But, why would he spend the majority of his life making up such trash and living the lie to trick the masses to believe if he had himself lost faith in and disavowed God? Alternatively, if he still believed in God, then surely his boldfaced lies of immense scope and heresy, along with the massive deceipt foisted upon his human brethren, would surely and immediately doom him to hell (or similar place)...

 

Never mind my faith in God for a moment. Men do a lot of disgraceful stuff in this lifetime to be sure, however, I have also faith in man (as well) in that I believe there are indeed righteous people on this Earth who have no need/desire to engage in deceipt toward their fellows. Because I must give Sadler the presumptive benefit of being one of those good guys, I must also look into his history for myself to evaluate his life, character, and potential motive before ascribing him such heinous work...

 

I've already mentioned that hoaxing it without Sadler's knowledge was likely impossible.

 

Obviously, everyone needs to come to their own conclusion. I fail to understand how someone who adamantly debunks TUB as a fraud can ascribe such heinous motives to Sadler without having evaluated his personal history. :D

 

The way I approach it is to start a thread and then get a feel for the interest based on responses. :phones:

 

I'll have a look...

[Turtle]

Not sure whether to take this as sarcasm or otherwise humor.

 

A bit of both I'm afraid, but not directed at you, rather the book's writers. Sooooo hard to get such an enormous tome of this calibre to hang together logically and factually, and as we know, I have concluded it doesn't.

 

You've discerned by this point, no doubt, that it's not my view the Urantia Book was borne of deceipt. I, personally, am not a deceiver and don't engage in deceipt. Of that I can assure you... :D

 

I find you sincere and good humored so far. ;)

 

Such a suggestion is worthy of consideration. Alternatively, however, it is quite presumptuous to determine so out of hand (presenting the appearance of divisiveness for purpose of obfuscating authorship) without first evaluating Sadler's history. The man's history, to me, appears to not have a trace that I can see which meets the threshold for ascribing to him motive for perpetration of such a hoax. I would suggest that you should have written '... could be no more...' instead of '...is no more...' if you have an open mind prior to evaluating the history objectively. There can be no doubt of one thing - if Sadler hoaxed TUB he would in the final analysis have been sealing his own fate as a man who lived an incredibly large lie for many many decades. His history prior to becoming involved in the Urantia Papers (antecedent to the book) is entirely at odds with someone who would perpetrate such fraud on his fellow man, and perhaps as importantly, would take the sacriligious actions in affront to God that the hoaxing author of the Urantia Book did.

 

I accept the edit. Everyone's fate is sealed, no matter what.

 

 

Obviously, everyone needs to come to their own conclusion. I fail to understand how someone who adamantly debunks TUB as a fraud can ascribe such heinous motives to Sadler without having evaluated his personal history. :D

 

I'll have a look...

 

In a title, Milgram's Obedience to Authority supports the ascription to everyone of the capacity for heinous acts in spite of personal history and in response to a perceived authority. Let's not forget Abraham and his boy.

 

Roger that look. :evil: :phones:

[Turtle]

Musing away on the historical circumstances of the world in general and Chicago in specific before, during, and after the creation of the papers and book and looking for motive, I had this little epiphany. I love it when that happens. :ud:

 

What might have spurred the attempt to justify the modern scientific age with religion, the turtle asked. Why the Columbian Exposition of 1893 of course. :D All the latest and greatest from the 4 corners of the world gathered for everyone's perusal in the windy city. Voila! :D :evil: What a noble task fit for angels & wizzards. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!. :phones: ;)

[OutsideTheBox]

I find you sincere and good humored so far. ;)

 

Ditto. ;)

 

And I respect the position of non-belief. I was there once myself, for a looooong period, and can associate...

 

 

 

In a title, Milgram's Obedience to Authority supports the ascription to everyone of the capacity for heinous acts in spite of personal history and in response to a perceived authority. Let's not forget Abraham and his boy.

 

Roger that look. :hihi:

 

Indeed this capacity is true, and noted. I've seen it far too often in life firsthand. Benefit of the doubt requires me to investigate, but not believe without first evaluating...

[OutsideTheBox]

Musing away on the historical circumstances of the world in general and Chicago in specific before, during, and after the creation of the papers and book and looking for motive, I had this little epiphany. I love it when that happens. :ud:

 

What might have spurred the attempt to justify the modern scientific age with religion, the turtle asked. Why the Columbian Exposition of 1893 of course. All the latest and greatest from the 4 corners of the world gathered for everyone's perusal in the windy city. Voila! ;) What a noble task fit for angels & wizzards. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!. :hihi: ;)

 

Reasonable assertion. But, this really doesn't fit with Sadler's history since he was a relatively hardcore SDA through at least 1905 or so. And then he didn't entirely leave the SDA movement until sometime between 1910 and 1913 sometime.

 

Reading his letters from the early 1900s seem to give a good look into what the man was made of, at least at that time...

[Turtle]

Reasonable assertion. But, this really doesn't fit with Sadler's history since he was a relatively hardcore SDA through at least 1905 or so. And then he didn't entirely leave the SDA movement until sometime between 1910 and 1913 sometime.

 

Reading his letters from the early 1900s seem to give a good look into what the man was made of, at least at that time...

 

What does he say about his attendance at the Exposition? Or maybe more importantly, not say. :hihi:

[OutsideTheBox]

What does he say about his attendance at the Exposition? Or maybe more importantly, not say.

 

Sadler was 18 in 1893. I've seen no reference to him having attended the exposition (that doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere). He claimed to not have encountered the sleeping subject until 1908 (though other accounts put this time frame as perhaps closer to 1905 or 1906).

 

In any event, it's clear from his letters that he was absolutely faithful in his following of SDA spiritual leader E.G. White until the early 1900s (when he began to have doubts). Until the time of those doubts arising, one can see from his letters (many of which are chronicled, and some of which are reproduced entirely in Ernest Moyer's 'Birth of a Divine Revelation') that he believed unquestioningly in the 'testimonies' or 'visions' of Ellen White.

 

It's hard to argue that Sadler had decided to embark upon a Urantia Papers hoax prior to at least the time when he first expressed doubt in the 'testimonies' of White. If you take a look at his letters I suspect you'll agree...

[Turtle]

Sadler was 18 in 1893. I've seen no reference to him having attended the exposition (that doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere). He claimed to not have encountered the sleeping subject until 1908 (though other accounts put this time frame as perhaps closer to 1905 or 1906).

 

In any event, it's clear from his letters that he was absolutely faithful in his following of SDA spiritual leader E.G. White until the early 1900s (when he began to have doubts). Until the time of those doubts arising, one can see from his letters (many of which are chronicled, and some of which are reproduced entirely in Ernest Moyer's 'Birth of a Divine Revelation') that he believed unquestioningly in the 'testimonies' or 'visions' of Ellen White.

 

It's hard to argue that Sadler had decided to embark upon a Urantia Papers hoax prior to at least the time when he first expressed doubt in the 'testimonies' of White. If you take a look at his letters I suspect you'll agree...

 

I think it is a stretch to assume when a doubt began in his mind, based solely on when he announced or otherwise communicated that doubt.

 

Whether there is documentation of his attendance at the Exposition at age 18 (and remembering he married Miss Kellogg at 22), I would be stunned if a man of his interests and enthusiam could have been kept away. Wiki gives this short list of famous attendees:

Some famous visitors to the fair included Thomas Edison, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, Scott Joplin, Annie Oakley, Eadweard Muybridge, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Frederick Douglass, Henry Blake Fuller, J.P. Morgan, Henry Adams, Andrew Carnegie, W.D. Howells, Hamlin Garland, Swami Vivekananda, Helen Keller, Octave Chanute, John J. Montgomery, Nikola Tesla, and President Grover Cleveland.

 

Swami? >> Swami Vivekananda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[OutsideTheBox]

I think it is a stretch to assume when a doubt began in his mind, based solely on when he announced or otherwise communicated that doubt.

 

I think it's a stretch to ascribe him doubt (or any other attitude) without first reading the actual letters that were penned of his hand. If you haven't done this yet then I'm not quite sure how valid any of this dicussion is. It's ok if you don't care to research further (obviously). But, it really would be reasonable, if you do care to debate further, to read what the man was actually engaged in during the applicable years. Even if you don't believe a word of what other historians write about him, if you don't read the letters he wrote and understand them in the context of the ones he got back then I'm not sure what purpose it serves to continue suggestion and speculation. Without the use of the insight available (objective insight, to be sure, in the case of his letters) then what's the purpose of debating? I take the letters for what they are worth, and I think they're worth a great deal. Sadler was a very open man who was unabashedly honest (it would appear). They give significant insight into his character, assuming you don't think he was already faking when he wrote them...

 

Whether there is documentation of his attendance at the Exposition at age 18 (and remembering he married Miss Kellogg at 22), I would be stunned if a man of his interests and enthusiam could have been kept away. Wiki gives this short list of famous attendees:

 

Swami? >> Swami Vivekananda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

My understanding is he was in Battle Creek at this time. Again, I don't know if he attended. Not that I'm sure it would have mattered considering what transpired in his life over the following two decades...

[Turtle]

My understanding is he was in Battle Creek at this time. [of the Columbian Exposition] Again, I don't know if he attended. Not that I'm sure it would have mattered considering what transpired in his life over the following two decades...

 

I think what happens to most people when they're eighteen matters quite a lot in regard to what follows.

 

Investigating further the Exposition, this little influence arose: Parliament of the World's Religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

There have been several meetings referred to as a Parliament of the World’s Religions, most notably the World's Parliament of Religions of 1893, the first attempt to create a global dialogue of faiths.

...

The 1893 Parliament, which ran from September 11 to September 27, had marked the first formal gathering of representatives of Eastern and Western spiritual traditions. Today it is recognized as the occasion of the birth of formal interreligious dialogue worldwide.

 

Absent from this event were Native American religious figures, Sikhs and other Indigenous and Earth centered religionists. (It would not be until the 1993 Parliament that these religions and spiritual traditions would be represented.) The conference did include new religious movements of the time, such as Spiritualism and Christian Science. The latter was represented by its founder Mary Baker Eddy. Rev. Henry Jessup addressing the World Parliament of Religions was the first to mention the Bahá'í Faith in the United States (it had previously been known in Europe.[1]) Since then Bahá'ís have become active participants.[2]

 

The Buddhist preacher Anagarika Dharmapala was invited there as a representative of "Southern Buddhism" - which was the term applied at that time to the Theravada. He was a great success and by his early thirties he was already a global figure, continuing to travel and give lectures and establish viharas around the world during the next forty years.

 

Global dialogue of faiths? Not a bad description of the Urantia Book if one were pressed to describe it in so many words. Tell me Sadler et al weren't aware of this. Tell me the historical context doesn't matter in regard to the book. Tell me, tell me, tell me do.

[Caligastia]

I think what happens to most people when they're eighteen matters quite a lot in regard to what follows.

 

Investigating further the Exposition, this little influence arose: Parliament of the World's Religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

Global dialogue of faiths? Not a bad description of the Urantia Book if one were pressed to describe it in so many words. Tell me Sadler et al weren't aware of this. Tell me the historical context doesn't matter in regard to the book. Tell me, tell me, tell me do.

 

Indeed, the UB does have a "global dialogue of faiths" feel to some parts of it, in that it promotes the idea that almost all faiths have something of value or some measure of truth within them. There is even a narration of Jesus participating in an early "gathering of religions" near Urmia. From the description, it sounds similar to the present-day "World Parliament of Religions".

 

More than thirty religions and religious cults were represented on the faculty of this temple of religious philosophy. These teachers were chosen, supported, and fully accredited by their respective religious groups. At this time there were about seventy-five teachers on the faculty, and they lived in cottages each accommodating about a dozen persons. Every new moon these groups were changed by the casting of lots. Intolerance, a contentious spirit, or any other disposition to interfere with the smooth running of the community would bring about the prompt and summary dismissal of the offending teacher. He would be unceremoniously dismissed, and his alternate in waiting would be immediately installed in his place.

 

These teachers of the various religions made a great effort to show how similar their religions were in regard to the fundamental things of this life and the next. There was but one doctrine which had to be accepted in order to gain a seat on this faculty--every teacher must represent a religion which recognized God--some sort of supreme Deity. There were five independent teachers on the faculty who did not represent any organized religion, and it was as such an independent teacher that Jesus appeared before them.

 

PAPER 134 - THE TRANSITION YEARS

(scroll down to "The Urmia Lectures")

 

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean I think the inspiration for this was gleaned by a young Sadler from the 1893 event.;)

[Turtle]

Indeed, the UB does have a "global dialogue of faiths" feel to some parts of it, in that it promotes the idea that almost all faiths have something of value or some measure of truth within them. There is even a narration of Jesus participating in an early "gathering of religions" near Urmia. From the description, it sounds similar to the present-day "World Parliament of Religions".

 

PAPER 134 - THE TRANSITION YEARS

(scroll down to "The Urmia Lectures")

 

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean I think the inspiration for this was gleaned by a young Sadler from the 1893 event.;)

 

I was thinking the other day that a thorough search of newpaper archives in Chicago might shed some factual light on any association Sadler may have made with the Exposition as I have suggested he may. Also, whether any personal letters of his have any mention of it. Sounds like a job for someone. ;)

 

I found that any positive mention of a religion ,other than Christianity, is either prefaced or quickly followed with a derogatory statement/comment of some matter or form.

 

I find this prefacing disclaimer in that section, a rather more human than higher-spirit stylistic device, and illustrative of my mention in the previous paragraph.

[When we, the midwayers, first prepared the summary of Jesus' teachings at Urmia, there arose a disagreement between the seraphim of the churches and the seraphim of progress as to the wisdom of including these teachings in the Urantia Revelation. Conditions of the twentieth century, prevailing in both religion and human governments, are so different from those prevailing in Jesus' day that it was indeed difficult to adapt the Master's teachings at Urmia to the problems of the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men as these world functions are existent in the twentieth century. We were never able to formulate a statement of the Master's teachings which was acceptable to both groups of these seraphim of planetary government. Finally, the Melchizedek chairman of the revelatory commission appointed a commission of three of our number to prepare our view of the Master's Urmia teachings as adapted to twentieth-century religious and political conditions on Urantia. Accordingly, we three secondary midwayers completed such an adaptation of Jesus' teachings, restating his pronouncements as we would apply them to present-day world conditions, and we now present these statements as they stand after having been edited by the Melchizedek chairman of the revelatory commission.]

PAPER 134 - THE TRANSITION YEARS

[Caligastia]

I was thinking the other day that a thorough search of newpaper archives in Chicago might shed some factual light on any association Sadler may have made with the Exposition as I have suggested he may. Also, whether any personal letters of his have any mention of it. Sounds like a job for someone. ;)

 

I'm hoping OutsideTheBox might show up again, but if I remember correctly he stated that he didn't find any connection when he researched Sadler. That's not to say there isn't, of course.

 

I found that any positive mention of a religion ,other than Christianity, is either prefaced or quickly followed with a derogatory statement/comment of some matter or form.

 

Here's a paper that comments on many religions, but I can't see any of the derogatory statements you speak of:

PAPER 131 - THE WORLD'S RELIGIONS

 

And in my opinion, Christianity gets more criticism than most, as you can see in this paper:

 

PAPER 195 - AFTER PENTECOST

(Towards the end)

 

I find this prefacing disclaimer in that section, a rather more human than higher-spirit stylistic device, and illustrative of my mention in the previous paragraph.

PAPER 134 - THE TRANSITION YEARS

 

 

;)

I honestly can't see why you would take that statement as being derogatory towards non-christian religion, or any religion for that matter. To me, it seems to plainly informational - regarding the problems of adapting what Jesus said to the present day.

[Turtle]

I'm hoping OutsideTheBox might show up again, but if I remember correctly he stated that he didn't find any connection when he researched Sadler. That's not to say there isn't, of course.

 

I recall he said as much.

 

Here's a paper that comments on many religions, but I can't see any of the derogatory statements you speak of:

PAPER 131 - THE WORLD'S RELIGIONS

 

I think this passage is illustrative of the derogatory stylistic devices I mentioned. Why express shock, except to imply that the pitful humans surely can't think on their own? Near? Well, close but no cigar. Disadvantage looser humans again. ;) There is always an aside in these writings to take something more away than is given. (bolding mine.)

...Ganid was shocked to discover how near Buddhism came to being a great and beautiful religion without God, without a personal and universal Deity. However, he did find some record of certain earlier beliefs which reflected something of the influence of the teachings of the Melchizedek missionaries who continued their work in India even to the times of Buddha. Jesus and Ganid collected the following statements from the Buddhist literature. ...

 

And in my opinion, Christianity gets more criticism than most, as you can see in this paper:

 

PAPER 195 - AFTER PENTECOST

(Towards the end)

I'll have a look, but any such comes across to me as inter-faith squabbling. Gotta show why those Seventh Day Adventist ideas make a better fit.

 

I honestly can't see why you would take that statement as being derogatory towards non-christian religion, or any religion for that matter. To me, it seems to plainly informational - regarding the problems of adapting what Jesus said to the present day.

 

It is derogatory by implying that even the angels can't write clearly enough for our pitful mongrel minds. It is a stylistic device in that it removes the necessity of the human authors to write the details of what they claim to know verbatim about "the most systematic and formal of all the Master's teaching on Urantia."

...In accordance with this arrangement, Jesus stopped off on the return trip and delivered these lectures. This was the most systematic and formal of all the Master's teaching on Urantia. Never before or after did he say so much on one subject as was contained in these lectures and discussions on the brotherhood of men....

[Caligastia]

I think this passage is illustrative of the derogatory stylistic devices I mentioned. Why express shock, except to imply that the pitful humans surely can't think on their own? Near? Well, close but no cigar. Disadvantage looser humans again. :cup: There is always an aside in these writings to take something more away than is given. (bolding mine.)

 

Your interpretation of this passage is completely different from mine. Ganid is a human, so how can any view of his be considered a celestial condescension? And the shock portrayed seems to be related to the fact that Buddhism was able to convey so much truth and beauty without a deity. Can you come up with any more examples from that paper? It shouldn't be difficult if "any positive mention of a religion ,other than Christianity, is either prefaced or quickly followed with a derogatory statement/comment of some matter or form".

 

I'll have a look, but any such comes across to me as inter-faith squabbling. Gotta show why those Seventh Day Adventist ideas make a better fit.

 

Please show me specifically which Seventh Day Adventist ideas are supported in the Urantia Book - other than annihilationism, which Seventh Day Adventists share with Jehovah's Witnesses. Also note that there is much in the UB which directly contradicts core Adventist beliefs.

 

 

It is derogatory by implying that even the angels can't write clearly enough for our pitful mongrel minds. It is a stylistic device in that it removes the necessity of the human authors to write the details of what they claim to know verbatim about "the most systematic and formal of all the Master's teaching on Urantia."

 

Again, you seem to see cosmic insults where there aren't any. The passage clearly states that the difficulty in translation was due to the radically different conditions of our present-day world as compared to the conditions extant during the times of Jesus' speech at Urmia.

 

I can understand your reasoning when you state that human authors would find it useful to employ such a stylistic device to avoid providing details, but it's also reasonable to think that beings from a higher plane of existence would have difficulty in portraying certain concepts and ideas which are completely new to humans - no?

[Turtle]

Your interpretation of this passage is completely different from mine.

That's why this is a discussion.

Ganid is a human, so how can any view of his be considered a celestial condescension?

I think because it is purported that celestial beings authored it, regardless of who they quote or not, and inasmuch as the Urantia Book accords celestial beings with superior abilities & knowledge to humans, then the implication is any communication errors lie with the human.

 

In the passages where Ganid is referenced, the authors give exact times for meetings that Jesus is reported to have attended, and yet they beg-off giving us his exact words, which presumably they know. :) The little aside then attempts to justify this by faulting the reader's ability to understand another age.

 

I can understand your reasoning when you state that human authors would find it useful to employ such a stylistic device to avoid providing details, but it's also reasonable to think that beings from a higher plane of existence would have difficulty in portraying certain concepts and ideas which are completely new to humans - no?

 

Having some experience in teaching, I agree not every crayon takes a fine point in the sharpener, but in the case of these passages under discussion it is a matter of avoiding reporting known facts, i.e. what Jesus said at the meetings. How is it earlier folks might comprehend it, but not we later more developed folks? :) :)