Brent Posted May 5, 2012 Author Share Posted May 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Brent, I suppose one could either read the UP as fictional fantasy or as divine revelation. If it is the first, it could be entertaining and maybe insightful, but this genre is not my personal cup of tea. If it the latter -- which I understand it purports to be -- then I would want some basis for accepting it as such. History is full of alleged divine revelations and revealers. Surely, they are not all authentic (since they don't fundamentally agree). So, how do we go about separating the authentic from the inauthentic? On what basis do we accept the UP and reject the Qur'an, the Bible, the Book of Mormon or whatever. If you were here proposing any writing as divine revelation, I would be asking the same question. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Hmmm ... is the process of "doing justice" a competitive or cooperative venture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Brent, I do not think that any of these sources can be "categorically determined as authentic." At least, I have never seen a plausible case presented. Also, I don't object to those who do believe in divine revelation unless statements in the texts are asserted as 'true' based on this status. Yes, I am skeptical about claims of divine revelation, but I would be interested of what evidence you might have but have yet refrained from presenting. And, please don't be deterred by my personal skepticism, others participants here may be less so. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 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: 101:2.1 “The fact of religion consists wholly in the religious experience of rational and average human beings. And this is the only sense in which religion can ever be regarded as scientific or even psychological. The proof that revelation is revelation is this same fact of human experience: the fact that revelation does 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, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit.” Peace, Brent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I didn't get far. I was struggling to find a focus in this discussion of what 'religion' is and is not - sometimes seeming to be what it is not and sometimes seeming to not be what it is. Not always a wrong way to approach a spiritual experience since it is ineffable. Since I know from other discussion, that "True religion" is a personal spiritual experience, this use of the word "religion' seems careless language to describe both corporate and personal experiences. But the writer is not satisfied with the mystical, "it is what it is not" and introduces "Thought Adjuster" out of the blue Suddenly we are scientific and mechanistic in description.. 101:1.2 The Thought Adjuster has no special mechanism through which to gain self-expression; there is no mystic religious faculty for the reception or expression of religious emotions. These experiences are made available through the naturally ordained mechanism of mortal mind. And therein lies one explanation of the Adjuster's difficulty in engaging in direct communication with the material mind of its constant indwelling. To visualize the language I thought of a Jackson Pollack painting: lots of action (ideas) dripping splashing, the canvas filled with marks of all kinds failing to bring into focus an idea or two but creating an overall effect that is difficult to describe because the painting is and is not about the drips and streaks and slashes of paint. - and Lee Krasner creating the intellectual space so that others would see the paintings worthy of being called art and carrying meaning. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 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... Brent, Your perception about me is correct. However, with all due respect, you seem to avoid directly addressing the question. If you would rather not discuss this or reveal your personal beliefs, that is understandable. Please just say so and I will drop the issue. If you don't mind discussing it, let me be blunt. Do you think the UP are divine revelation? If so, on what basis did you arrive at this belief? If not, why do you recommend these writings to those in this forum? George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 "Quote 101:1.2 The Thought Adjuster has no special mechanism through which to gain self-expression; there is no mystic religious faculty for the reception or expression of religious emotions. These experiences are made available through the naturally ordained mechanism of mortal mind. And therein lies one explanation of the Adjuster's difficulty in engaging in direct communication with the material mind of its constant indwelling." Translation: Emotions exhibit intrinisic intentionalty (Searle, 1992), and are a product ot the Limbic Sytem located in the center of the brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 12, 2012 Author Share Posted May 12, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Brent, Do you think the UP is the only text that is divine revelation or just one of a group of other revelations (like the Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon, etc.)? I don't agree about the irrelevance of authority in religious texts. Divine revelation is inherently authoritative. Can one decide that God was wrong about anything contained in a divine revelation? I don't think so. On the other hand, human inspired texts are subject to critical (with the meaning of 'judicious evaluation') examination and possible disagreement. Divinely revealed texts are read quite differently from other texts. One only attempts to discern the meaning of the revelation. It can be interpreted literally, metaphorically, symbolically, etc., but one cannot deem any particular passage to be false or in error. A particular passage can even be considered scribal error or translation error, but not false in its original form. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 12, 2012 Author Share Posted May 12, 2012 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. “The papers, of which this is one, constitute the most recent presentation of truth to the mortals of Urantia. These papers differ from all previous revelations, for they are not the work of a single universe personality but a composite presentation by many beings. But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space. While such admissions as this may possibly detract from the immediate force and authority of all revelations, the time has arrived on Urantia when it is advisable to make such frank statements, even at the risk of weakening the future influence and authority of this, the most recent of the revelations of truth to the mortal races of Urantia.” 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I haven’t said the question was irrelevant, but rather (in my experience) “invariably unproductive and perhaps inherently unprogressive.” (from a practical standpoint). You are right, you have not said that. However, I think it is productive and maybe critical in approaching a text. As an example, one's reaction to a text that is fiction is different from one that purports to be history. Both may have the same information, may be well written with lots of useful information, but our understanding and perception can be quite different. I don't think one can pick up a religious text (with an acknowledged human author) and react the same way as one that the reader believes to be divine revelation. Writing by, as an example, St. Augustine or Bishop Spong are not perceived the same as a text that the reader believes to be spoken by God. BTW, you didn't answer my question about your view of other texts that some consider to be divine revelation. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 12, 2012 Author Share Posted May 12, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 “There have been many events of religious revelation but only five of epochal significance.” (underline mine) Brent, I have a more existential approach to "revelation". It seems to me that the Catholic Theologian Hans Kung spoke correctly when he suggested that there could be no world peace without peace between the religions. And one of the heart warming things - at least for me - has been the progress made in this by various human beings, who have sought to cross the boundaries, in what has been referred to as Inter-spirituality Revelation, at least to me, is found in individual hearts as they respond to words and deeds throughout the world. When a human being reads "Thou art formless, your only form is our knowledge of You" (Vedas) and grows in tolerance, and deepens their own reluctance to create idols of the mind, "revelation" is working.....(Called upaya - "skilful means" - in the Buddhist tradition, the way Reality-as-is manifests for the good/enlightenment of all) And again, "Those who in faith worship any other God, because of their love they worship me" (Bhagavad Gita) can only reveal what is good to any human heart open to a God who IS "Love". In fact, revelation to me is person to person, and if we seek to dictate exactly where it is to be found, and has been found, then we are likely to miss it when it hits us in the face. And all this corresponds to the words of Jesus Himself, who spoke of a true prophet as one who is known by their "fruits" Fruits spoken of by St Paul as love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control My own knowledge of history shows that such fruits have been manifest in countless lives, of people of all faiths and some of none. They have never been restricted to those who have "responded" to certain epoch making revelations of "significance". Frankly, such have been more the genesis of discord in our world, as each revelation vies with another. So, O Saichi, what is your joy? This world of delusion is my joy! It contains the seeds of relishing the Dharma. Namu -amida- butsu is blooming everywhere! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 13, 2012 Author Share Posted May 13, 2012 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. Derek: “Revelation, at least to me, is found in individual hearts (snip)…revelation to me is person to person (snip)… My own knowledge of history shows that such fruits have been manifest in countless lives, of people of all faiths and some of none.” 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. Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality. In the last analysis, religion is to be judged by its fruits, according to the manner and the extent to which it exhibits its own inherent and divine excellence. (101:4.3,4) 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Brent has said.....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. Brent, re the above, how do you understand such "distinction", particularly in relation to the five of epochal significance.? Given that these five would seem to relate only to ideas one would more often than not associate only with "western" thought processes? But anyway, glad we are not far apart in spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 13, 2012 Author Share Posted May 13, 2012 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. In #87 of this thread you expressed:“7 trillion other worlds like ours? Good grief!” (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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Can we imagine the relative insignificance of present day distinctions between the “eastern” and “western” thought processes? Yes I can, that's the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Brent, really, my "good grief" regarding the number of world systems was about the inability of most us to communicate effectively here and now with those we profess to love. My poor mind seems to make leaps like this, and poses enough questions without seeking "answers" in revelations from the administrative headquarters of a time-space superuniverse presided over by a triumvirate of Ancients of Days. The answers are far closer to home. All the best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 13, 2012 Author Share Posted May 13, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Brent, Many of those involved in the generation of the Urantia papers were phychiatrists and psychologists. What does this suggest to you? Myron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) 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 Edited May 14, 2012 by Brent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) Brent, truly, no sense of amazed chagrin at all. Sorry, we appear to be on different wavelengths. Revelation as some kind of unfolding of "truths"; and truth as some sort of accumulation of knowledge - however gained - is just not "it". For me, our real journey in life is interior, it is a matter of growth, deepening, and of an even greater surrender to the creative action of love and grace in our hearts (Merton) Knowledge - scientific or otherwise - automatically finds its place within such. The Divine, Reality-as-is, can be known by love, but by thought, never. Which opens the heart of the Cosmos - of whatever size and population - to the "child". Edited May 14, 2012 by tariki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share Posted May 14, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.