Brent

Derek, I’m sorry, but to me your expression, “Good grief!” (exclamation point yours) seemed to convey at least some degree of amazement or excitement. When (in post #120 of this thread) you later qualified that earlier remark by relating it directly to “…the inability of most of us to communicate effectively here and now with those we profess to love.”, I logically concluded “amazed chagrin”, silly me. After reading the rest of your last post, I get the impression that you've extrapolated my attempted description of two simple terms (autorevelation and “epochal” revelation) into some peripheral concern outside of the immediate subject being discussed. That said, with Love I'm quite certain we are on the same wavelength. Peace, Brent

Myron, Contrary to your supposition, my recollection of the facts reveals no psychiatrists or psychologists other than Dr. William Sadler and his wife, Dr. Lena Kellogg Sadler, who were actually involved in the reception of the Urantia Papers. The other 3 members of the “contact commission”, as it was called, were not doctors. The group forum which met to read, discuss, and provide questions/feedback during the late 1920’s through early 1930’s (when the manuscript was finalized) consisted of people from many diverse walks of life, professional and non-professional. There was no predominance of any one professional or educational persuasion. Dr. Meredith Sprunger was a trained theologian, an ordained minister, and a vice-president in the UCC long before he first read the Urantia Book in 1955, more than 20 years after its “generation”. He subsequently engaged a second calling as professor of psychology, dept. head, dean, and college president partly in order to contact with more people while he maintained his pastoral credentials. Any hypothesis based on your suggestion would be difficult to support, imho. Best to you, Brent

Derek, I can relate to a sense of amazed chagrin over problematic human communications. The eventual harmonization of scientific discoveries with theological and philosophical maturity will help to mitigate this, I trust. Although the answers which deliver us from the consequences of egoistic illusions become clear "within", as potentially cosmic citizens I don’t suppose we’d ultimately benefit from abandoning the progressive discovery of our universe neighborhood, in all its complexities. Peace to you, Brent

Derek, I see a transient focus on desire for verification of authenticity morphing into parsing over distinctions in types of revelation while a potentially transformative presentation of the life and teachings of Jesus goes unexplored. That’s ok though, I’ll try to help and again remind those following this thread of the need for a much broader context to progressive understanding. (how about $15+ trillion US national debt, $50+ trillion govt. unfunded liabilities, or worldwide $600 trillion notional value of risky financial derivatives!!!) So how will you be inclined to consider and react to a (claimed) divinely commissioned epochal revelation from the administrative headquarters of a time-space superuniverse presided over by a triumvirate of Ancients of Days (One of seven superuniverses, each consisting of 100,000 separate domains of Paradise Creators Sons)? A major portion of this work is devoted to revealing various historical “epochs” of the evolutionary planet we live on – Urantia – as well as a description of projected future epochs culminating in the permanent stabilization of humanity in Light and Life. Can we imagine the relative insignificance of present day distinctions between the “eastern” and “western” thought processes of mortal creatures on one single planet which has progressed for 1 billion years since the implantation of the divine spark of life and 1 million years since the first recognition of this world as having evolved human mind? The authors state that there have been just 5 missions of epochal revelatory significance in our human history. (note: Two of these important missions defaulted as a consequence of events related to the Lucifer rebellion.) They have described these types of revelation as planned and presented by celestial agencies, groups, or personalities rather than as autorevelation which emerges directly into individual human minds through the ministry of the prepersonal indwelling spirits of our First Source and Center. My understanding of such distinctions has been thus informed through reading the text. In friendship, Brent

Derek, I think that in spirit we are actually in close agreement. No locus of living Truth is being dictated. No one is actually vying for perception of supposed revelatory “status”. Though I can see the sense where this might be a critical point of skeptical analysis, I have no need to give it a great deal of importance. The authors of the UPapers have described this as “autorevelation”, which emerges from within due to the work of the indwelling spirits of our First Source and Center. They also point out the fact of a distinction in divine revelations based upon the mechanics of existential emergence, if you will. Discussing the self-claimed authenticity of the UPapers as an epochal revelatory presentation easily gets bogged down in misperceptions when folks haven’t yet grokked the benign intent of such statements or studied the whole of the work. Parsing the subject is unproductive when it overweighs examination of the substantial context, in my view. If they will suspend judgment regarding supposed origins, folks can get on with deciding for themselves whether the teachings found in the UPapers exhibit an “inherent and divine excellence”. Imho, they most certainly do. Best regards, Brent ps. Great quotes! btw...

George, I can see the sense in which the question itself is perceived as critical in approaching a text. My own approach was intentionally to suspend judgment. Since no “plausible case” of a source text that you know of can be “categorically determined as authentic (divine revelation)”, then I fail to see how my profession of belief/reaction should productively influence your personal evaluation. Surely you’d agree that this is something you’d necessarily determine (or not) in your own experience via sufficient examination and study. I prefaced a quote of UP 92:4.4 with my belief statement that I do take the authors as truthful at their word: “There have been many events of religious revelation but only five of epochal significance.” (underline mine)... Thus, I’ve clearly answered your question to the effect that I think the Urantia Papers are the only existent text that is an epochal divine revelation. While other sources undoubtedly transmit relative degrees of the personal revelations received by their scribes, I don’t find them to measure up to the epochal category. Peace in Love, Brent

George, I agree with you that “Divine revelation is inherently authoritative.”, and for this I am grateful . For now though, whether the UPapers are recognized as such will necessarily remain a matter of personal religious experience independent of the diverse biases of academic approval. The authors address the revelatory issue from various perspectives in numerous passages, beginning with the Acknowledgment at the end of the Foreward. I haven’t said the question was irrelevant, but rather (in my experience) “invariably unproductive and perhaps inherently unprogressive.” (from a practical standpoint). Having admitted my belief, it follows that for me the text is authoritative and I deem the authors to be truthful. I take them at their word when they state in UP 92 – THE LATER EVOLUTION OF RELIGION Section 4: Para 4, that “There have been many events of religious revelation but only five of epochal significance.” (underline mine) 1. The Dalamatian teachings. (associated with the eventually defaulted planetary mission of Caligastia - a Son of Christ Michael - dating from approx. 500 thousand years ago) 2. The Edenic teachings. (associated with the defaulted mission of a Material Son and Daughter – Adam/Eve approximately 40 thousand years ago) 3. Melchizedek of Salem (associated with the emergency mission of a Melchizedek Son around 2500 B.C.) 4. Jesus of Nazareth. (the incarnation bestowal life and teachings of our universe Creator Son) 5. The Urantia Papers. UP 101: Sections 4 & 5 – THE LIMITATIONS OF REVELATION and RELIGION EXPANDED BY REVELATION imo, contain further relevant material for those with an appetite for this aspect of the UPapers. Interesting subject perhaps, trending (as usual) toward being long-winded, but for me not nearly so momentous, enlightening, insightful, and practically helpful as other teachings found therein. Peace, Brent

George, Yes, I do think the UP are divine revelation. In my human experience, these writings do “synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion…” – and much more... I don’t need “authoritative” accreditation; nor should my personal experience (and those of many thousands of other readers worldwide) be considered or offered as such proof of a gift of divine revelation. I see getting bogged down in the “authoritative” issue as invariably counterproductive and perhaps inherently unprogressive. Therefore, while the authors make many obvious statements as to the facts of UP origins which can only be validated in personal experience, my recommending these writings to this forum is otherwise motivated. I consider the UPapers to have inestimable value as the planetary masterwork of printed language on many levels, and my attempt to share them with this forum springs from genuine loving-service. While it may have appeared that I “seem to avoid directly addressing the (divine revelation) question”, the issue is simply less significant for me than for some, apparently. Kind of like something that I put on a back burner years ago and don’t need to fuss with anymore. The bases upon which I arrived at this understanding can be personally discovered (or not) for oneself by reading the text. Fraternally, Brent

George, Did you happen to view any of Mo Siegel's interview with Dr. M.J. Sprunger? The first 3.5 minutes contain, in my view, interesting dialogue related to your concerns related to the question of divine revelation. At around 2 minutes into that video Meredith stated something like this: “I always try to be, as a scholar, I try to be objective, and I would say that really it doesn’t make any difference whether you accept the Urantia Book as revelatory or whether you don’t.”… ending with: “I really don’t think that question is of supreme importance.” I find the full context very worthwhile, myself. Something tells me that you, as so many others did, would’ve enjoyed knowing Meredith personally. While agreeing with the above view of its relative lack of significance, I’m willing to humor the “revelatory” subject a bit. It seems to me that, despite evident and self-admitted skepticism, you are deeply motivated by the study of religion in terms of historical events, cultural outgrowths, psychological aspects, spiritual values, authoritatively accredited authenticity, etc... If that assumption is close to the truth, then I further speculate that you might experience some satisfaction in chewing upon what some have called the “religion papers” and perhaps also the “Thought Adjuster papers” in the Urantia Book. At 11 minutes into the previously mentioned interview, Dr. Sprunger references these two sections of the UPapers this way: “For me, the papers on the nature of religion in the middle of the book are just outstanding. They are some of the best papers on religion in print. The chapters on the spirit of God, which lives within the individual, these run parallel to some of the finest things in all the devotional literature in any religion in the world. And there are some very, very fine things in all the religions of the world in devotional literature. But these chapters in the Urantia Book on what they call the Thought Adjusters are outstanding and excellent. Anyone who has any inclination to know more about a personal relationship with God will find them very, very enlightening and helpful.” Of the “religion papers”, I’d think that surely UP 101 – THE REAL NATURE OF RELIGION provides solid nutrition. There’s a section in that paper which contain statements directly related to your interest in revelation. Perhaps you’ve a few minutes to spare for a look-see: Peace, Brent

George, You’ve aroused my curiosity just a bit. I imagine that you can list those factors that amount to what you would consider a “basis for accepting” the authenticity of revelatory claims. Of course, some folks would undoubtedly include other factors and perhaps reject some or all that you prefer, wouldn't they? Can those sources you mentioned, or any others, be categorically determined as authentic in your view? I could be mistaken, but I have the impression that, as a committed skeptic, there's little chance of any evidence being quite sufficient to your satisfaction. Maybe the authenticity you seek can only be found in the eye of the beholder? Actually, I am not “here proposing any writing as divine revelation”, though it is true that the authors of the UPapers do make that claim. Personally though, I don’t feel that the claim, or the issue itself, is of great importance. From time to time, I hope to offer some view of what I feel are valuable insights which I’ve found beautifully presented therein. Peace, Brent

George, Honest skepticism regarding the basis for acceptance of the UPapers as credible is quite understandable and expected. I regard your penchant for rigorous vetting of authoritative claims as an admirable trait up to a point. That point being when/if conclusions are drawn before research is complete. My sense is that you are well capable of reading and analyzing practically any written material on the planet and could develop an informed and balanced appraisal of the UPapers if you chose to. Perhaps, like the late Dr. Sprunger, you might consider the 700 or so pages of Part IV (The Life and Teachings of Jesus) as a quick dispatch that would result in a slam-dunk dismissal, which I might find interesting. Or, like him, you might consider that anyone who could write such profound material would undoubtedly have something important to reveal in the rest of the work. Anyhow, I’m not at all interested in coercing anyone as I attempt to share my view of its value. Regards, Brent Ps. I find the UP portrayal of the apostle Thomas throughout the public career of Jesus to be insightful. Psychiatrist Dr. William Sadler, a staunch sceptic for over 20 years of the phenomena associated with the reception of the UPapers in which he was deeply involved, was finally convinced in his own mind of their authenticity after reading paper 139: The Twelve Apostles.

Dutch, I’m happy for you and for all who've found suitably accessible approaches to following Jesus. Brent

Friends, Considering the breadth covered in 2000+ pages, I find that the authors’ mince few words discussing the nature of divine revelation, epochal or personal. A notable exception would be UP 92:4 – THE GIFT OF REVELATION. If it were worth the effort, I could link to some other choice gleanings. My own view, after having considered the UPapers for over 30 years, gives far more weight to the example given of the religious life of Jesus in Part IV. Much of the rest, albeit substantial, is supporting scenery. In the very last paper (UP 196), I read: Peace, Brent

I am in 100% agreement, Joseph. Such "statements" may serve as "progressive catalysts" of a sort, and thus may actually have a practical relevancy, imo. Those who enjoyed the interview of Meredith Sprunger may recall his statement that the claim of revelatory origins for the Urantia Papers was not of supreme importance. The papers on the life and teachings of Jesus, religion, God's indwelling spirits, the nature of God, Trinity, the history of Earth, the development of civilization, etc...these may be recognized as more important by those who are so inclined to discover them. Loving service, Brent

The Hubble Space Telescope site estimates there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe (of universes). A recent German super-computer simulation estimates that the number may be as high as 500 billion… The scientific journal Nature published a study which estimated 100 billion + planets in our Milky Way galaxy. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that 7 trillion inhabited planets is quite easily within the realm of God’s infinite potential and give up a little praise for the Allmighty. Just saying - progressive enough? Peace, Brent

Dutch, Since you mentioned the Bob Dylan music, I'll share that it struck me as somehow odd. Maybe I couldn't help connecting the lyrics with the Jehovah Witnesses who usually have several copies of The Watchtower when they drop by, omg! Anyhow, just like the parable of the seeds, efforts like this one will have varying degrees of sucess, perhaps some to a hundredfold... Be blessed with Peace, Brent

PC friends, I've come across a short (8 min.) video trailer related to a projected documentary series regarding the Urantia Papers which I found a little intriguing. I've also heard that the producers anticipate an extended series to be aired, but no certain dates yet. Anyhow, although this doesn't yet address serious scepticism or present what I might consider to be the deeper spiritual values and truths which are confirmed in the UPapers, it may be a precursor effort toward more widespread public dissemination. Enjoy, if you are inclined "The Urantia Files" In your service, Brent

Yvonne, In a further effort to relate what I’ve read in the UPapers to this thread’s focus on the Divine Feminine, I’ve learned that while the Creator Sons (Michael of Nebadon/Jesus of Nazareth being of this order) and Creative Daughters “collaborate in the creation of a large number of Sons and other universe personalities”, the Universe Mother Spirit also engages in solitary efforts at spirit reproduction: “Thus begins the creation of the seraphic (angelic) hosts of a local universe.” (parens mine; see 38:1 – ORIGIN OF SERAPHIM) In good spirit, Brent ps. Paul, your perception of "gobbledydook" is not uncommon at all, no offense taken.

Paul, Simply put, within the bounds of that which is consistent with the Divine nature, the triune Paradise Source(s) and Center(s) have no limitations regarding their ability to create/originate. UPaper 16 – THE SEVEN MASTER SPIRITS, Section 0, paragraph 3 states: “We know very little about the action of the (Universal) Father and the (Eternal) Son in the creation of the Master Spirits. Apparently they were brought into existence by the personal acts of the Infinite Spirit, but we have been definitely instructed that both the Father and the Son participated in their origin.” (parens mine) Again, I would regard ascribing literal anthropomorphic gender attributes to the eternal uncreated triune Persons of Godhead as a counterprogressive distraction. For those so inclined, deeper understanding may be had through study of UPapers 1 through 16 (see: Table of Contents). Progressive loving service, Brent

Yvonne, Not surprisingly(!), my thoughts on the Divine Feminine are deeply influenced by what I have found written in the Urantia Papers. I will offer my interpretation of what they have to say regarding your question. When we speak of Trinity (tripartite existential Deity), anthropomorphic gender terms are clearly inadequate. The Urantia Papers, after informing us of these three Paradise eternal Sources and Centers, go on to describe Deity personalities and relationships which are directly involved in the manifestation of time-space/mindal-material realities. The evolutionary “grand universe” of time-space is revealed to have been originated/manifested through the Seven Master Spirits, divine offspring of the Paradise Trinity, of whom gender designation would likewise be misconceived. Only when we learn about the creation of the “local” universes - evolutionary subdivisions of the inhabited seven superuniverses (each associated with one of the Master Spirits) - do we encounter what we might recognize as a gender differentiation of Deity. According to the authors, these vast cosmological/geographical areas of creation are the partnership domains of Creator Sons and their associated Creative Daughters, also called universe Creative Spirits. UP 17: Section 6 – THE LOCAL UNIVERSE CREATIVE SPIRITS contains material which describes the “initial Paradise differentiation” of these Creative Daughters, as well as further phases of the careers of the local universe “Mother Spirit(s)”. There is also preliminary information regarding their mind ministry in UP 17:7. In UPaper 34 – THE LOCAL UNIVERSE MOTHER SPIRIT, the authors go into a deeper explanation of the nature and ministry of these “feminine” Deity personalizations. Perhaps some PCers will discern value and gain insights from these presentations. Loving service, Brent

Mo Seigel (Celestial Seasonings founder and CEO) interview with Dr. Meredith J. Sprunger, UCC pastor and vice president, psychologist, scholar, university president. Dear PC friends, Meredith, a beloved friend and mentor of hundreds, if not thousands, reached 97 years of age one week ago, then departed for the mansion worlds just after midnight. Some here may benefit enjoyably (and perhaps have their appetites whetted for deeper looks into the Urantia Papers), from this earlier video interview with Dr. Sprunger. In your service, Brent

Dear PC brethren, Back in October ('11) I sensed a pause, perhaps prolonged, in my attempted portrayal of various aspects of the Urantia teachings was called for. A seeming paucity of interest, understandable given the posture of this board as a whole, in the UP's unique presentation of our Creator Son's participation in the evolutionary plan of mortal ascension led me to reconsider the efficacy of my service effort. So, while I have kept up with most of the threads here and have many times felt an urge to offer input, I'm more realistic regarding the idea of finding those who are willing to investigate, discover and discuss these teachings in real depth. That said, I do remain open to sharing when it appears as a potentially positive opportunity. If you've got a little available time, some here may enjoy what, imho, is a high-quality introductory resource (leading perhaps to further discussion) which can be found on this 3 part series of utube videos: (by Sangik7) A Dios (hasta luego!) Brent

"The world is filled with hungry souls who famish in the very presence of the bread of life; men die searching for the very God who lives within them. Men seek for the treasures of the kingdom with yearning hearts and weary feet when they are all within the immediate grasp of living faith. Faith is to religion what sails are to a ship; it is an addition of power, not an added burden of life. There is but one struggle for those who enter the kingdom, and that is to fight the good fight of faith. The believer has only one battle, and that is against doubt--unbelief." (UP 159:3.8 - Instruction for Teachers and Believers)

"True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh." The Urantia Papers 101- Section 1. True Religion (a small portion of what are sometimes called the "religion" papers, highly worth reading imo) Paper 99: The Social Problems of Religion " 100: Religion in Human Experience " 101: The Real Nature of Religion " 102: The Foundations of Religious Faith " 103: The Reality of Religious Experience

Bill, I wish you much soul Peace and enLightened understanding on this “sabbatical” phase of your WaySeeking. While quiet since around the time you joined this list, I’ve been sympathetic with your observations and insights and have derived much pleasure from your contributions. I’ll look forward to when your possible future participation will evidence a deepening progression of the wisdom which, with your active consent, God is bestowing upon you. May your cup overflow with our Father's blessings, Thanks brother, Brent