UBH BILL SADLER to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Chicago, Ill., November 3, 1958

Dear Meredith,

I have very much appreciated the material which you’ve been kind enough to let me see and I thought you might enjoy looking over the report made to the Brotherhood summarizing its first three years and also the Master Universe Hypothesis. This latter is in the third draft and the fourth draft is in process. Any comments you care to make would be much appreciated.

Cordially and sincerely,
Bill

UBH TRIENNIAL REPORT of URANTIA BROTHERHOOD

From William S. Sadler Jr., President

For the years 1955—1958

I. INTRODUCTION: THE FIRST THREE YEARS
This is the first Triennial Report to be made by the chief executive officer of Urantia Brotherhood to the chief legislative body of Urantia Brotherhood.

This report will attempt to review the accomplishments of the Brotherhood from its beginnings, some three years and a few weeks ago, to date. This is a historic period of considerable moment in the evolution of religion on this planet. Never before has a group of human beings organized themselves by deliberate action into a social vehicle for the promotion of religious truth. Previous religio-social organizations—the churches—have come into being more or less gradually and unintentionally; they were not founded with conscious intent and purposeful design. The churches came into being through the slow evolution of customs, precedents, traditions, rituals, and observances. This type of growth is in sharp contrast to that of the Brotherhood which suddenly came into existence when its Constitution was signed by thirty-six founders.

This Brotherhood was brought into being by a group of individuals who have (or should have) historic insight into the planetary significance of their actions. Because of this, the founders and administrators of the Brotherhood should be capable of showing a type of mature wisdom far surpassing that which has characterized the actions of any of their predecessors in the field of religion. Our predecessors little understood what they were doing as their day-by-day actions culminated in the appearance of the historic churches of Urantia. But our knowledge of the past should give us a much greater degree of insight into the meaning of our day-by-day actions—actions which will eventually bring the Brotherhood into full being.

While we do have this advantage of having historical insight, still the founders and the administrators of the Brotherhood are a relatively untried group of people. As administrators of a social organization with a religious purpose, we are all amateurs. We are untried; we are lacking in experiential preparation for our respective tasks. Therefore have many of our efforts been characterized by fumbling and groping, and by that general trial-and-error method which is so inseparable from the acquisition of all bona fide job knowledge in any field.

Our insight into what we are trying to do does not exempt us from the need to learn from experience. But this same insight should enable us to achieve a much more mature and truly sophisticated perspective for self-analysis—for an objective and realistic appraisal of our efforts as a group.

For a group of unpaid amateurs, working on a part-time basis, we have not done badly. As compared to a group of professionals—such as those who administer a well-run business organization—our record is not such a happy one. Because we have had to learn our jobs as we went along, it has taken far too long to get things done. But we have made progress. The record of the first three years is not a bad one—though it might have been much better.

It is the purpose of this report to attempt an appraisal of our efforts to date. This report will not attempt to be so kind as to obscure candor, and an effort will be made to associate optimism with realism.

II. COMPLETION OF ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY
Like the supreme seraphim of local universe service, the Brotherhood has evolved from the top downward. Here again, we are unlike any of our predecessor groups. We started out with a written Constitution, the signing of which brought the Brotherhood into being. This was done some ten months before the publication of the Book and about a year and a half before the chartering of the first local Society. Other religious groups have started with teachers and writings and have grown from there to embrace congregations which eventually possessed themselves of written Constitutions, or the equivalent. In our case, the process was reversed: We started out with a Constitution at the top of the organization and have proceeded from there to build the understructure. Let us then take inventory of our progress in the completion of the construction of the administrative machinery of the Brotherhood.

• The Constitution. We started out with our Constitution already in writing. While it is hardly a perfect document, it has proved to be workable. It will undoubtedly be amended in the future, but it should serve the Brotherhood effectively during the next six or more years.
• The By-laws. These By-laws have been written and adopted and are now in effect. Like the Constitution, they are not perfect, but they have proved to be serviceable.
• The Rules of the Executive Committee. These Rules are required by the Constitution. They supplement and amplify the By-laws in governing the affairs of the Brotherhood. Such Rules were recently adopted by the Executive Committee.
• The Rules of Procedure of the Executive Committee. These Procedure Rules are also required by the Constitution. They govern the internal practices of the Executive Committee. Such Procedure Rules were also recently adopted by the Executive Committee.
• The Departmental Committee Rules. Late in 1957, each Departmental Committee adopted its own Rules of Procedure, as is required by the Constitution.

This completes the inventory of the administrative machinery that is required by the Constitution. All required administrative machinery has been brought into being during this first triennial period. The last item in our inventory is not required, but is permitted by the Constitution:

The Urantia Brotherhood Corporation. This Corporation was organized about a year and a half ago under the laws of the State of Illinois. It has served as the Fiscal Agent for the Brotherhood. It has also functioned as the sales agent for the Foundation.

III. EFFECTIVENESS OF DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES
A very wise individual once said, “Comparisons are odious.” Nevertheless, we must make comparisons if we are to make any kind of an estimate of the effectiveness of human performance.

It is not the purpose of this report to single out for comment either specific individuals or individual groups. It is, however, within the scope of this report to attempt a comparison between three general levels of performance on the part of the Departmental Committees. This report elects to classify performance in the three following categories: unchallenged, unresponsive, and relatively effective. Let us consider these categories one by one:

1. Unchallenged performance. Some of the Departmental Committees simply have had very little to do. What little they have had to do has been done quite well. But, in the absence of much of any challenge, it is not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of performance.
2. Unresponsive performance. Other Departmental Committees, while encountering little in the way of specific challenges, still could have shown more initiative. They could have undertaken certain work and could have established certain liaisons which, at the very minimum, would have been highly educational to the Departmental Committee itself. The performance of these Committees could well be characterized as “unresponsive.”
3. Relatively effective performance. Still other Committees have come up against the challenge of a considerable number of problems. For the most part, they have performed in a relatively effective manner. By thus responding to the challenge of problems, these Committees have grown in experience and have tended to surpass their colleagues in the attainment of administrative skills.

All in all, the effectiveness of the Departmental Committees is about what might be expected from a group of earnest amateurs, all of whom are working without compensation and in their spare time.

IV. LIAISONS ESTABLISHED WITH URANTIA FOUNDATION
While there is no organic connection between the Foundation and the Brotherhood, there are certain relationships of a functional nature that are obviously desirable. During this first triennial period, two such functional relationships were formally entered into with the Foundation:

1. Physical Custody of the Book. By joint action on the part of the Foundation and the Brotherhood, certain individuals were designated as “Joint Custodians of the Urantia Book Functioning on Behalf of Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood.” This physical custody relates to Books not in the possession of the printer. These Joint Custodians of the Urantia Book have functioned very efficiently from early October of 1955 to date.
2. Sales Agency for the Book. When the Brotherhood Corporation had been organized, it entered into a relationship with the Foundation whereby it serves as the active sales agency for the Book. Since the establishment of this relationship, all sales have been made through the Corporation and all profits from such sales accrue to the Brotherhood through the Corporation. (The Foundation is presently operating on a “break even basis” as concerns the sale of the Book.) It presently appears possible that the Foundation may, in the future, request the Brotherhood Corporation to act for it in the sales of still further publications.

V. DEVELOPMENT OF EFFICIENCY (AND LACK OF IT)
Quite a little space in this report should be devoted to a discussion of the development of organization efficiency—and the lack of it. Perhaps this subject can best be discussed under four general headings:

1. The problem of the sincere amateur. Sincerity may well unlock the doors of the kingdom of heaven, but it is efficiency that gets things done down here on earth. There are two interesting proverbs that might be quoted at this point: “Many hands make light the work” and “too many cooks spoil the broth.” The first proverb usually proves true when the “many hands” are also skilled hands. The second proverb is all too often true when the “too many cooks” are unskilled amateurs. The volunteer worker is a most welcome individual—if he will only take time to learn his job. Otherwise, he often costs more in time than he contributes to the venture.
2. The problem of the impatient professional. Certain individuals have been able to bring their personal skills and their vocational experience to bear on the problems of the Brotherhood. In this sense, they are “professionals” and stand in contrast to the “amateurs” we have been talking about. This bringing together of the professionals and the amateurs has been (and will continue to be) a somewhat trying experience for both. Each tends to frustrate the other. The amateur is often offended by what appears to be cocksureness on the part of the professional; the professional all too often becomes impatient when he observes the fumbling approach of the amateur. The impatient professional is then quite apt to overstep propriety in the interests of getting something done. This action produces two results: The job gets done and the amateur’s feelings get hurt. What is called for in this situation is a greater humility on the part of the amateur and a greater patience on the part of the professional. In time, the coercive education of experience will diminish the number of amateurs, will increase the number of professionals, and will tend to minimize this problem. But this problem is inherent in a self-governing organization whose elected administrators will not always have professional competence to bring to their responsibilities.
3. Transitional-adjustment problems. Still other problems arise because this is the first triennial period in the history of the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood, itself, arose out of an older social group. This older social group had its own traditions, and such administrative traditions are considerably older than the Constitution of the Brotherhood. Now the Brotherhood is a self-governing body, but the preceding social group was not. This means that the administrative customs of the older social group will be at considerable variance with the administrative procedures set forth in the Constitution of the Brotherhood. It is usually somewhat difficult for human beings to change long-established habits, and so, for a little while, we are bound to encounter transitional problems—problems arising because of the conflict between the administrative customs long operating in a social group that was not self-governing and the administrative procedures set forth in the Constitution and By-laws of the Brotherhood, which is a self-governing social group. Time, in association with patience and tolerance, will ameliorate and eventually remove this problem.
4. Positional values in a system. Until the nine men on a baseball team really know where they are supposed to be in all expected situations, they just simply are not a team—they do not know their positions on the playing field. The papers express this idea as follows: “In aggregations parts are added; in systems parts are arranged. Systems are significant because of organization-positional values. In a good system all factors are in . . . position. In a bad system something is either missing or displaced—deranged.” (p. 1227, 59) Now, in theory, the Brotherhood is an organization—a system. And the function of each administrator in the Brotherhood, in a sense, is his “positional value” within the system which is the organization of the Brotherhood. But, while in theory the Brotherhood is a system, in actuality we started out as a mere aggregation of people and each one of us has had to learn his “positional value” within the system. This “positional value” is defined by the Brotherhood Constitution and its supporting documents. When each one of us has learned to function in and from his defined position, then we will have a good system, a well-organized and efficiently administered Brotherhood. Until this lesson has been well-learned, the Brotherhood will be, at least in part, a “bad system” because one or more of us is out of position, “displaced—deranged.”

VI. POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
The Brotherhood Constitution is non-amendable until after the convening of the first Triennial Delegate Assembly—some six years from now. Nevertheless, it is the intent of this report to make record of certain suggestions which may possibly receive consideration at some future date. The following suggestions are accordingly recorded:

1. Term of office in a local Society. The Constitution requires that the officers of a local Society “. . . shall be elected annually. . . .” It would appear that this places a valueless restriction on the autonomy of a local Society. It is recommended that this section be liberalized so that such officers may be elected for a term of one, two, or three years—as the local Society desires.
2. Geography and the General Council. As the Constitution is now worded, membership in the General Council is a prerequisite to holding office as an officer of the Brotherhood or as a chairman of a Departmental Committee. At the present time, there are five such officers and nine such chairmen; this adds up to a total of fourteen out of the thirty-six members of the General Council. In addition to this, the Constitution requires that one additional member of each Departmental Committee also be a member of the General Council. Since a Brotherhood officer may also be a member of a Departmental Committee, this provision could call for as few as four additional Councilors, or as many as nine. We have here a spread ranging from a low of fourteen-plus-four to a high of fourteen-plus-nine. In other words, at least eighteen and as many as twenty-three members of the General Council are required to be active in the administration of the affairs of the Brotherhood. Now, as we are presently constituted, this requirement presents no pressing problem because we started out with General Councilors who were almost all resident in the Chicago area. But, what are we to do when the General Council is an elected council and when there are around a dozen Societies in the Chicago area and more than a hundred Societies that are situated elsewhere? We can hardly expect the Triennial Delegates to hand pick a General Council of Chicagoans. And, if they do not do this very thing, how are we to function? Already we have encountered a tendency for members of Departmental Committees to resign when they move away from Chicago. Suppose that even half of the General Council (eighteen members) are resident remote from Chicago, how is the Brotherhood to be administered? It is accordingly recommended that the prerequisite of Council membership be eliminated as concerns membership in, and chairmanship of, Departmental Committees. This would mean that only the five officers of the Brotherhood would have to be members of the General Council.
3. Term of office of Departmental Chairmen. Some consideration should be given to staggering the terms of office of the chairmen of the Departmental Committees so that all nine chairmen do not come up for election at the same time. As matters now stand, there could be a possible complete turnover of the personnel of the Executive Committee each six years. This does not make for good administrative continuity.

VII. A BROTHERHOOD—NOT A CHURCH OR A SECT
“What is the Urantia Brotherhood? Another sect?” This question has been put to the writer of this report more than once. To this question, a negative answer has always been given, “No, the Urantia Brotherhood is neither a church nor a sect. It is simply a social group which has a religious objective.”

There is a real place in modern civilization for a group of religious people who are “. . . willing to completely divest themselves of all ecclesiastical authority and fully surrender all concept of spiritual sovereignty. God alone is spiritual sovereign.” (p. 1487) The modern world hardly needs another church, another sect. At the present time, we suffer from a plethora of churches and a multiplication of sects.

But, if we are not a church, how then do we differ from a church? If we can clearly see how we differ, then perchance we can maintain such differences. And, if we can maintain these differences, then we may be able to preserve our organization as a distinctive Brotherhood; we may be able to avoid a possible evolution in the direction of a church.

Well, right on the face of it, there are three main differences between the Brotherhood and a typical church: We claim no spiritual sovereignty; we claim no exclusive path to salvation; we claim no ecclesiastical authority. So long as we do not claim these things we can hardly become a church.

But, even if we are not a church, even if we never become a church, is it also true that we are not a sect? A Urantian could be a sectarian religionist; he could be a religionist who is primarily dedicated to the propagation of the Urantia Book. Would such a dedication, however, be a valid dedication—in the light of what we all know? The writer submits that such a dedication is not valid as a primary dedication. Such an exaltation of a most worthy secondary dedication to primary status could well transform a religious Urantian into a sectarian Urantian—a Urantian who has allowed the importance of the Urantia Book to take precedence over the importance of God.

How then can we, as Urantians, avoid not only churchification but also sectarianization? The writer believes that both of these unfortunate developments can be avoided if we are careful in distinguishing between Means and Ends. This is another way of saying that we should be careful not to confuse our Secondary loyalties and our Primary loyalties. The writer would accordingly submit for the careful consideration of the Brotherhood the following philosophy of action:

1. God is the only true End. Our primary spiritual loyalty and dedication is to the Universal Father, and to Him alone. When we encounter some spiritually hungry brother, our first objective is to bring him closer to his spiritual Father. This we may attempt with or without the Book. All other things are secondary and subordinate to the acquisition of this one “pearl of great price”—the realization of sonship with God.
2. The Urantia Book as a Means to the End. The Book itself is not an End—it is a most important Means to an End. It is designed to bring God closer to man and to bring man closer to God. We may minister to our spiritually hungry brothers with or without the aid of the Urantia Book. But, if the Book ever becomes mandatory in our ministry, then have we truly become sectarian. Our primary objective, as Urantians, is the service of God, and the Book is an important Means to that great End. Here we should make a vital distinction between that which is value and that which has value.
3. The Urantia Brotherhood as a Means to the End. Neither is the Urantia Brotherhood, nor membership in it, a true End. The real function of the Brotherhood is also the function of a Means to accomplish a desired End. The structure of the Brotherhood is to the spiritual experiences of its members as the river banks are to a river; it is true that no river can be had without its banks—but neither should the banks be confused with the flowing river. The Brotherhood is designed to promote the Book and the Book is designed to bring God and man closer to each other.

If we can clearly separate Means and Ends, if we can always subordinate Means to the true End, then we shall continue for a very long time as a real Brotherhood. And we shall avoid becoming merely another church or another sect in the world of the twentieth century—a world which needs neither a new church nor a new sect.

A PERSONAL POSTSCRIPT
It has been a real honor to have had the privilege of serving as the first chief administrative officer of the Urantia Brotherhood. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my official and administrative associates of the past three years. We have all participated in the beginning of something which may play an increasing part in the promotion of peace on earth and good will among men. And may we never forget that this peace and this good will can come only as the fruit of man’s spirit-born realization that he is truly a child of the Universal Father and that each one of his fellow men here on earth is also a child of that same Universal Father.

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to BILL SADLER

Culver, In., November 5, 1958

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your letter, the Triennial Report, and the Master Universe Hypothesis. The latter shows a profound and inclusive grasp of Deity potentials found in the Urantia Book. There are beautifully reasoned analogies which reveal an amazing grasp of details.

As I am mainly interested in the truths and potentials of the Grand Universe, I have done very little intensive thinking about post-supreme events. My casual thinking, however, had roughly approached your systematic, detailed, and excellent Master Universe Hypothesis. I personally appreciate your carefully reasoned paper as an easy way to a more detailed and articulate Master Universe concept. It will serve as the basic study of what might be called Urantian eschatology for years to come. Eschatology has always been an intriguing interest of man.

The only suggestion I would have to offer concerns the beginning and the end of the hypothesis. It would seem more complete to me to begin with the ONE UNCAUSED, the eternal and infinite I AM, and then proceed to the second pretime-space Deity action which produced the first absolute divinity tension, resulting in the Deity Absolute, Universal Absolute, and Unqualified Absolute. From there to the third pretime-space action of Deity in which the great I AM achieved the realisation of personality by becoming the Eternal Father of the Original Son simultaneously with becoming the eternal Source of the Isle of Paradise.

It seems that the end of the hypothesis might be improved with the postulate of the philosophers of the universe of a Trinity of Trinities with the personalisation of this trinity being the Universal Father on the I AM conceptual level. Thus you would tie in the end with the beginning. Another important reason for making these additions is that finite beings must have psychological-conceptual references for philosophic, origin and destiny explanations that transcend time-space concepts or “Universe Ages.”

Your concept of the Master Universe as the nucleus for the Cosmos Infinite is an intriguing insight. This, as I would see it, is the central creative insight of your paper and will no doubt some day be called or referred to as the “Sadler Hypothesis.”

I especially appreciated your Triennial Report because of the specific historical references. Increasingly I am becoming concerned about accurate historicity in the Urantia movement. It seems to me that you might be the logical person to some day write a brief, accurate report of the major events from 1911 to the organization of the Urantia Brotherhood. Details of personal or unusual nature would probably be omitted. But significant steps of development and generalizations regarding the general trend of events and attitudes might be included. Such an objective history should, of course, be done with the approval of the General Council.

What I am trying to say is that every reasonable and objective step ought to be taken to prevent misrepresentation and apocryphal history from gaining credence. Sometime I should like to talk with you about this general problem. It is possible that you may have good reason to take a different view of the subject.

If you ever got near to Culver, it would be good to have you stop for a visit.

Cordially yours,
Meredith

UBH REV. ROBERT E. CHILES to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Dayton, Oh., November 7, 1958

Dear Dr. Sprunger,

By a somewhat devious route a copy of the Urantia Book and your reading guide have come to my attention. I was intrigued to learn what Urantia was all about. I did not, of course, labor through the entire tome, but checked relevant sections here and there. A copy of my judgments concerning Urantia, which I have prepared for one of my church members from whom I got the Book, is enclosed. I should be interested in your response to the strictures which I have leveled against the good book.

Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Chiles

UBH CRITICISM of the URANTIA BOOK

From Rev. Robert E. Chiles

Concord Methodist Church, Dayton, Oh., November 7, 1958

I. Sources and Attitude
It is frustrating to attempt to criticize materials which purport to be direct revelations. There are no manuscripts to examine, persons to interview, historical situations to investigate. It is so with Urantia. Since it makes frequent reference to the Biblical Faith, it can, however, be judged how far it is true to this faith. There are also some parallels that can be drawn with other intellectual movements. Urantia pleads for open-minded, tolerant investigation. However, the God of the Bible, to which it makes frequent reference, is often designated by the Bible as a jealous God and his wrath is made known to his people when they go whoring after false gods. This will be the attitude of these judgments.

II. Old Testament
In its scheme of development Urantia treats the Adamic story and period as relating to actual history. This, of course, blatantly ignores the results of critical biblical scholarship for the past hundred years. Treating great figures in the pre-Christian era, persons from China, and India, and Greece are indicted. Very carefully, however, the prophets of the Old Testament are omitted, the reason being, of course, that they stood in flat contradiction to the scheme Urantia develops.

III. Revelatory History
Urantia reflects a complete misunderstanding of history as it is viewed in the Bible. The Covenant Community Israel, the Acts of God, and events in which he encountered his people—all these things that reflect the scandal of particularity are ignored. For the Bible God is one who acts, not one who publishes inspiring ideas. The Bible gives little ground for the assumption that revelation is evolutionary and progressive. The God who acted in the Exodus is the same God who delivers his children from the bondage of sin in Christ. The Bible does not encourage people to look for a new disclosure of truth. Its chief injunctions are remember and obey.

IV. Anthropology
Urantia utterly misconceives the Biblical understanding of men. It ignores man’s situation as a creature of finite freedom anxious and tempted to self-assertion in order to secure himself in existence. Urantia is almost wholly without a doctrine of sin. There seems to be no hint of the bondage of the will which requires that God act first before men can make the slightest overture toward salvation. For Urantia man is finite and ignorant and enslaved by matter; for the Bible man is anxious, fallen, and spiritually perverse. There is no common ground between these two views.

V. Jesus and the New Testament
Urantia’s views of Jesus can be found in a thousand places among rationalistic interpreters of Christianity about 1930. Its anti-Pauline bias has been relinquished by every informed New Testament scholar. The stress upon the teachings of Jesus are another illustration of its outdated position. Urantia ignores the careful study of the gospels which places question marks after a great deal of the supposed utterances of Jesus. Urantia is not continuous with nor supplement to the New Testament as claimed; but, rather, has a host of affinities with the Gnostic tendencies which are violently opposed in the New Testament.

VI. Salvation by Illumination
As a consequence of the positions it holds, salvation, for Urantia, is knowledge, a form of Gnosis, of salvation by secrets, secrets disclosed, in this instance, by souped-up celestial servants. Faith is stripped of the existential characteristics which indelibly mark it in biblical religion. The atonement is reduced to the vanishing point because man is not sinful and God is agreeable. The incarnation is monstrously extended as a part of a collection of bizarre emanations.

VII. Unblushing Plagiarism
The Urantia Book gives little material evidence (in style and content) of being composed by a host of different people as claimed. But much worse, it utterly ignores that religio-philosophic movements of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, from which obviously it has been stolen. Varying ideologies of the ancient world are surveyed, but oddly, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism are omitted. The most superficial comparison with these heresies discloses that Urantia is just about as new as the New Testament, which is to say, it was alive in New Testament times and marked out in detail by the third century A.D. About all that is new is some cosmological speculation of dubious plausibility and some impossible verbiage that would do slight credit to a cheap science-fiction novel. The easygoing, tolerant syncretism of these pseudo-religious movements, and therefore of Urantia, stands at the far pole from the majestic, sovereign demand of Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Urantia is a fraud and a hoax. Of course, much that is true inadvertently appears in it. It would be impossible to write 2100 pages and avoid reality altogether. It unfolds the melodramatic shotgun wedding of secondhand Neoplatonized Gnosticism and slipshod Protestant rationalism to sanctified science fiction and sheer damn foolishness. The bastard offspring of this union is called Urantia. There is no place for it in the House of the Lord.

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to REV. ROBERT E. CHILES

Culver, In., November 10, 1958

Dear Rev. Chiles,

Thank you for your letter and comments on the Urantia Book. In answer to your request for my response to these remarks, I would say that your opinions are apparently based largely on misinformation. In your two-page analysis, I find the following accurate statements about the Urantia Book:

• “. . . which purport to be direct revelation. . . .”
• “Urantia pleads for open-minded, tolerant investigation. . . .”
• “In its scheme of development Urantia treats the Adamic story and period as relating to actual history. . . .”
• “Treating great figures in the pre-Christian era. . . .”
• “For Urantia man is finite. . . .”

There is another partially correct statement about the Urantia Book: It does not discuss many of the philosophies of the past such as Gnosticism but it in many places warns against the errors which Gnosticism made.

I can understand how it was possible for you to get the various misconceptions regarding the point of view of the Urantia Book by the hop, skip, and jump method you used. From your comments, it would appear that you have little or no grasp of “Urantia theology” for factual information about the book. It is possible by selecting certain portions out of their context of the total picture of the book and get such a series of mistaken concepts which you present—but actually they have come mostly from your own mind.

I’m not saying that I disagree with your theological point of view—my guess is that I would pretty closely agree with it. But I’m simply saying that you are commenting on a lot of misinformation—pretty much as I would comment on such misinformation.

We have a group of pastors who have been studying this book critically for several years. About a month ago we met with one of the best New Testament scholars in the nation to discuss the Urantia Book. Although he had read only part of the life of Jesus and the sections dealing with Old Testament literature, he said he was much impressed and that whoever wrote it had the finest theological insights of modern scholarship.

Regardless of who wrote the Urantia Book, so far as we have been able to determine it contains the finest theological insights and the most comprehensive and relevant worldview of religion, yet distinctively Christian, that we have been able to find.

Am not interested in defending the Urantia Book. It stands on its own validity or it does not stand. Would simply say, on the basis of your remarks, you have very little accurate information of what the Urantia Book claims. My guess is that you have only begun to hear about the Urantia Book. Even when people understand its true message, it will be a controversial book.

Best wishes to you.

Sincerely yours,
Meredith J. Sprunger

UBH WILLIAM S. SADLER to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Chicago, Ill., November 13, 1958

Dear Dr. Sprunger,

I have read with interest your letter and enclosures. I don’t know any way to answer criticism or help people about the Urantia Book if they fail to read it or study it. Again, if people have a confirmed bias or fixed prejudices there is nothing you can do about it.

When a bottle is securely corked you can’t get anything in or anything out.

Thank you for remembering me in this matter.

Sisncerely,
William S. Sadler

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to WILLIAM S. SADLER

Culver, In., November 14, 1958

Dear Dr. Sadler,

Am enclosing a new Evaluation and revised Summary of the Urantia Book. The new Evaluation being more objective, I believe is much better than the older ones. In the revised Summary I merely incorporated the supplement sheet and made a few minor changes to the old edition.

Have been doing much thinking about the best method of presenting the Urantia Book to people. Having had dealings with three theological professors, numerous ministers, and many laymen—I am convinced that the summary or personal coaching is a practical necessity for presenting the Urantia Book.

Almost without exception—even among the most educated—professors, ministers, and laymen come up with badly distorted concepts of what the Urantia Book claims. The Summary may not be convincing to some critical minds but it will help some people approach the Book with a more balanced understanding. It is definitely only preparation for reading the Book but much confusion is saved by this procedure.

I am reminded that the Urantia Book itself is a condensation of material originally prepared for presentation. This kind of realistic adjustment to human limitations it seems is wise.

Therefore I should like to suggest that the Brotherhood consider the possibility of printing a dignified booklet containing the enclosed Evaluation and Summary or similar material which would be available to individuals as an aid in introducing the Urantia Book to interested friends.

If you agree with this proposal, would you present it to the General Council. If you do not think it wise, I would appreciate knowing why. After your [recent] counsel I thoroughly agree with your advice regarding the promotion of the Urantia Book. This may be a case, also, where I need to consider certain things which, at present, have escaped my consideration. Would appreciate whatever suggestions you have to give.

Cordially yours,
Meredith

UBH BILL SADLER to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Chicago, Ill., November 17, 1958

Dear Meredith,

I’m glad you enjoyed the Master Universe Hypothesis. What you have is the Third Draft and the Fourth Draft is in process. Your suggestions are much appreciated and will receive attention in the Fourth Draft.

I’m putting it in a little different form by having some of the detailed reasoning put into appendices and taking it out of the text. I’ve had to provide five appendices to cover just the introduction to the First Section.

I’m glad you liked the Triennial report and maybe we can discuss this some time in Culver.
I’ve had some interesting adventures with two of the groups in California and with the group in Oklahoma City. There’s a little study group forming in Connecticut which is slowly growing and has reached seven and may shortly grow still further.

I’ll do my best to get to Culver as soon as the work pressure slackens a little.

Sincerely,
Bill

UBH ROBERT E. CHILES to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Dayton, Oh., November 18, 1958

Dear Dr. Sprunger,

I was glad to receive your prompt and detailed response to my analysis of Urantia. I would like only to make this further statement and inquiry: Biblical theology, as it has been enunciated in recent years by a host of scholars, talks about the unity of the Bible as resting upon the activity of God in history. Within the whole of historical development there is a sacred or saving segment as designated by Anderson—Creation, Covenant, Christ, Church, and Consummation. Both Old and New Testaments bear this out many times.

Since the Bible is about God’s acts in history, these critical acts are often pointed to and frequently summarized. Thus, in essence, the meaning of the thousand pages in the Old Testament may be found in Deuteronomy 6:20-25. In like fashion the central acts of God recorded in the New Testament are summed up in the apostolic preachings. This kerygma appears in several places in the Book of Acts; for example, 2:14-39; 3:13-26; 10:36-43, etc. What I should like to know now is this: Can Urantia be tersely and precisely summed up in the manner in which the Bible can and is? If it can be, I should very much like to have such a summary statement. If it cannot be, I wonder how it can be rated as a supplementation or fulfillment of the Bible revelation as God’s acts in history.

Perhaps the very nature of the appearance of the Urantia Book precludes the possibility of its being both a witness to and product of a creative revelatory manifestation of God in history.

Unless he prefers to remain anonymous, I would be interested in the name of the scholar who gave his approval to the interpretation of Christian insights in Urantia.

I hope that my inquiry is of sufficient interest to you to elicit a reply.

Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Chiles

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to ROBERT E. CHILES

Culver, In., November 20, 1958

Dear Rev. Chiles,

Thank you for your letter. What you say about the “unity of the Bible as resting upon the activity of God in history” is correct. The same point of view is even more true of the Urantia Book point of view. It has a grasp of this creative activity of God in history that is almost too complete—but most intriguing. Once you get its entire picture, it is amazingly relevant in terms of the modern understanding of history and our modern astronomical cosmology—in addition to the best knowledge of man’s religious development. Am enclosing a brief summary of the Urantia Book from which you can get a quick—but not convincing—view of the Book. Reading its detailed analysis is much better.

Since this is bound to be a controversial book, I don’t think it would be fair to bring the name of the N.T. scholar into it. He received his Ph.D. in N.T. from Chicago University. I did not mean to imply that he was advocating that people read the Urantia Book—in fact, he is quite suspicious of it. But at no point did he differ from the basic Urantia point of view.

Feel free to write further concerning the Urantia Book. There are points which pose problems for the conventional orthodox and liberal points of view. But I know no book that will sharpen your religious thinking more thoroughly than challenging the basic concepts of the Urantia Book.

Sincerely yours,
Meredith J. Sprunger

UBH ROBERT E. CHILES to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Dayton, Oh., November 25, 1958

Dear Dr. Sprunger,

I have read very carefully your 23-page summary (I wonder how conceivably this could be reduced to 200 words), which makes the basic position of Urantia abundantly clear. With a pair of scissors it could be divided into footnotes which would sustain nearly every point in my original analysis. The naked facts stand out in stark clarity. They proclaim that 2100 pages are needed to soften and dilute the Big Lie which, of course, must be repeated variously ad nauseum until the reader, concluding the whole, is stunned into submission.

There is no common ground for discussion between us. Either you are wholly uninformed about the positions of current Biblical scholarship or you are so intrigued with your new love as to lose all objectivity or perversely you pretend to accept the Biblical faith at the same time you undermine it at every critical point. Such ignorance or blindness or dishonesty precludes the possibility of any minimal meeting ground and, therefore, of any creative interchange between us.

Urantia is right when it observes that the Christian Church is only a pale image of what it ought to be. Surely the final mark of its present degeneracy is the fact that you believe what you do and remain within its fold as though you belonged. It is probably too much to hope that your illicit relations with this bastard faith have not utterly distorted your intellectual and spiritual integrity. If it had not, you would instantly resign from your church, surrender your ministerial credentials, and announce to the world the ersatz religion which up to this time you insist is at home with Biblical faith. I should be very uneasy myself if I were the leader of the miserable little band of men pretending to be ministers who have given their minds and souls to this intriguing goddess. As a minister of the Word I am sure you have a responsibility to maintain your integrity by surrendering either one or the other of your religions. But finally ours is not a personal disputation—it is, rather, the inescapable conflict between the Sovereign God of the Bible and pretenders to his throne, however subtly they may endeavor to insinuate themselves.

I really do not begrudge the time I have given to our controversy—I do regret, however, that my unrestricted criticism will be appropriated into your self-contained system and render you the satisfaction of counting yourself one of the martyrs in the nobling search for truth. I would remind you that the One whom we are both to serve is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We have no commission to seek another.

Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Chiles

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to ROBERT E. CHILES

Culver, In., November 28, 1958

Dear Rev. Chiles,

In response to your letter of November 25, it is clear that our understanding of the Urantia Book and the historic Christian faith differs. You see little or no good in the Urantia Book; I think it has a significant contribution to make to the Christian faith and world religion.

The wording of your letter reveals that you are emotionally disturbed by the Urantia Book. Therefore I think it would be wise for you to ignore it or leave it to others until such time as you may have the desire to approach it more objectively—at which time you will not feel it to be a threat to your religious or emotional security.

I am quite willing to let the judgments of history decide the matter. If we could get together a thousand years from now—wherever we may be in the universe—I’m sure we would be in much closer agreement in our evaluation of the Urantia Book.

It is good to know there is a growing number of ministers, like yourself, who are not afraid to study the best current Biblical scholarship and use it in their teaching and preaching. Best wishes to you in your work.

Sincerely,
Meredith J. Sprunger

HMSA CHICAGO DAILY NEWS ITEM

November 30, 1958

SIR HUBERT WILKINS, EXPLORER, 70, DIES.

Framingham, Mass.—AP—Sir Hubert Wilkins, famed Australian-born explorer of the North and South poles, was found dead in his hotel room.

He was last seen Sunday cleaning his auto. Dirt on his hands and the fact that he was wearing his overcoat indicated he had collapsed on going to his room.

Medical examiner Dr. Irving Weisenfield expressed the opinion death was due to a heart attack.

Informed of his death, Lady Wilkins, the former Broadway actress Suzanne Bennett, burst into tears in her New York apartment. She left immediately by train for Framingham.

Sir Hubert had been living here for sixteen years in connection with his work with the Quartermaster Corps. He had an office in nearby Natick where he was a geographer for the Army’s Quartermaster Research and Development Center. . . .

HMSA HAROLD SHERMAN to SUZANNE WILKINS

Hollywood, Ca., November 30, 1958

Dear Suzanne,

This morning brought the shocking news of Sir Hubert’s departure from this life. I do not know the details, as yet, because it was just a radio flash, but I had written Hubert yesterday and was still holding the letter to enclose a folder with it. I had expressed a wish that he was well, the first time I had ever done this. I guess, when I saw him on TV recently, I had been impressed that he did not look his usual self. Both Martha and I expressed concern about him. Now, of course, Hubert has entered upon the greatest of all adventures—which he often said he did not fear. . . .

The experiment that Sir Hubert and I made in ESP, as recounted in our book, Thoughts Through Space, is growing in significance as time goes on. (Incidentally, when royalties are due on this book in the spring—and they have not been large—I will send a check to you, Sir Hubert’s share. . . .)

Please communicate with me when you can and let me know where you can be reached.

Martha joins with me in our deepest sympathy.

Sincerely,
Harold

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to WILLIAM S. SADLER

Culver, In., December 2, 1958

Dear Dr. Sadler,

Received Mrs. Rawson’s note⁵ and am puzzled to know what you may be referring to regarding criticisms made by Dr. Moss. This is the only criticism—the remark about the historicity—which Dr. Moss has made in writing. I did report some of his comments at our meeting in October. He at that time said the treatment of the prophets was in line with the best scholarship of our day, the Urantia date and Bultmann date of the crucifixion agree, and he had some misconceptions about what the Book claimed (which I don’t remember) but when we corrected them, he agreed with the point of view. We parted with Dr. Moss with no disagreement of anything discussed. I think, however, he is very skeptical about the Book.

From Rev. Bert Holm, La Grange Park, Ill., July 30, 1958:
“I must have missed the basic key, or something, but thus far (and I do want to meet and hear Sadler in re) I haven’t been impressed. There is some fairly good philosophy of religion, and some pretty mediocre speculation. Some obvious history, and some rather sophomoric work in trying to reconstruct the “lost” years of Jesus’ life. The entire attempt to structure the layout of cocreation seems highly contrived and mechanical, and the sacred spheres of Paradise seem as artificial and threadbare as the categories from, is it Divinington to Ascendington. The totality of creation, as I know it, is much more exciting, and in no place as crudely and mechanically organized and regimented as Urantia speculates.”

It appears that this is the only real negative criticism which I have received during the year except the copy of the criticism of the two theological professors from Mission House Seminary which is as follows:

“Much of their material strikes one as Gnostic. The church rejected Gnosticism because it substituted speculation for faith and pretended to know more about Jesus Christ than the commonly accepted tradition of the church. One can only read this material having a warning of St. Paul in mind: (Col.2:8).

“It would be an interesting study for a retired professor of church history to evaluate the similarities between the Urantia Book and the ancient Gnostic systems. In want of a better suggestion, the problem may also be suggested for investigation in a S.T.M. Thesis.”

“I personally have a hard time penetrating the depths of the Bible and appropriating its rich vocabulary. If I should spend further time acquainting myself with the ‘gobbledygook’ of the Urantia Book, I would be ready to have my head examined!”

“As Protestants we have no ‘Index.’ There is no objection to reading this Book. But one may also recall: ‘All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient.’”

“We must remind readers of the Book that the Church acknowledges God’s final revelation in Jesus Christ. To claim that the Urantia Book is a new revelation is to excommunicate oneself from the fellowship of the Church.”

Excerpt from a letter, Dr. Wagner to President Kroehler, January 23, 1958:
“This Book adds absolutely nothing to our faith in God as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. It is superfluous.”

These are all of the criticisms which I have that are of any value at all. Let me know if I can be of further help.

Sincerely
Meredith

UBH WILLIAM S. SADLER to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Chicago, Il., December 3, 1958

Dear Dr. Sprunger,

Regarding your question about the reserve corps of destiny holding meetings:⁶ I don’t think they hold any meetings among themselves, of which they are conscious. I think their organization is presided over by self-conscious Thought Adjusters in connection with guardians of destiny and the midwayers.

It is my understanding that those reservists would go on peacefully sleeping through all this.

Now there might occur in the case of “contact personalities” from time to time certain episodes of which they might be informed by the midwayers, and would therefore come to possess knowledge of their participation in some human event, as was the case of the “contact personality” in the production of the Urantia papers.

This is my understanding of the meaning of the paragraph you referred to.

Sincerely,
William S. Sadler

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to WILLIAM S. SADLER

Culver, In., December 6, 1958

Dear Dr. Sadler,

Thank you for the answer on the reserve corps of destiny. It sounds most reasonable to me. Although I assumed the guardians of destiny (and midwayers when needed) were active in these meetings, I don’t know why I didn’t immediately think of the Thought Adjusters. This explanation makes the wording in this section quite understandable.

I hope you received the copy of Rev. Robert Chiles’ criticisms which I sent yesterday.⁷

Sincerely,
Meredith

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to W. O. OSBORN⁸

Culver, In., December 6, 1958

Dear Mr. Osborn,

Last evening our Urantia study group met for our first meeting in the Bank Lounge. The facilities are wonderful and I should like to express to you my appreciation for the privilege of meeting in the Lounge. I’m sure this same gratitude is felt by every member of the group.

This study group is primarily a non-sectarian philosophical discussion group. We discuss everything from science to religion. I have heard some wild tales about our discussion group: that we are undermining the Bible, that we are a group of libertine thinkers, etc.—none of which are true.

We are simply a group of people who are interested in the most advanced knowledge available to man in almost every field of knowledge. We are interested in the growing point of man’s knowledge in science, philosophy, and religion. Anyone interested in the search for truth in the spirit of love is welcome.

On numerous occasions I have expressed my appreciation of your extensive Christian service in our community. I was never more sincere or more grateful than I am now as I extend to you our heartfelt thanks for the facilities which you have made available to this progressive study group in the community.

Sincerely,
Meredith J. Sprunger

UBH W. O. OSBORN to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Culver, In., December 8, 1958

Dear Dr. Sprunger,

I thank you for your letter of the 6th instant and was happy to know that the arrangements you have made to use our auditorium here at the bank take care of your needs 100 per cent.

We are always glad to help different organizations in our community in any and every way we can and we want you to know that it is a pleasure on our part to have you use our facilities.

I note what you have to say about your organization, which is meeting in our Assembly Room, which would indicate that the purpose of your organization is to encourage people to think; and while we do not know anything about the book which you refer to yet it is very evident from what you say that the book is non-sectarian and in no way could be interpreted as detrimental to the teachings of the Bible.

We have great faith in some of the people who belong to your organization and we feel that you would not do or cause anything to be done that would be detrimental to the good thinking people of our community.

We admire your forward look and trust that your organization will prove out to be a benefit to those that are taking advantage of your meetings and discussions which follow.

Yours very truly,
W. O. Osborn

UBH BILL SPECKMAN to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Mishawaka, In., December 9, 1958

Dear Dr. Sprunger,

Recently I was talking with a former teacher and a friend of mine, Walter Johnson, who I believe is a parishioner of yours. We spoke of religion, this being the one lasting enthusiasm of my young life. He mentioned the Book of Urantia and your interest in it. I have spent the last two weeks trying to locate a copy of it, but with no luck. This evening I saw him again and he had obtained a copy. He rather generously offered to let me borrow it for a short time.

I have had time only to glance through the book and to read your Evaluation. The purpose of this letter is rather presumptuous and melodramatic—but I have certain first impressions which I would like to formally record with someone. I discovered myself nodding with familiar approval at the interpretations expressed in your Evaluation. The awesome majesty and scope of Urantia quicken my awareness of God. The few sentences I have read move the artist in me. But most important to me, I intuitively sense some sort of mysterious relationship between this book and the Baha’i World Faith. If, upon perusal, this suspicion is confirmed, might I be so bold as to suggest that you aid me in any of the more subtle concepts of the Urantia?

How is it possible to get copies of this wonderful book? This is not a book to be read; it is one with which to live and grow. Happily, I am young and have much unused capacity for growth.

If one is needed, I hereby register an apology for my eagerness. But I hope you are favorably inclined to help me in my personal quest for meaning.

Sincerely
Bill Speckman

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to BILL SPECKMAN

Culver, In., December 13, 1958

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your warm and stimulating letter. Am happy to be of help in any way possible in your adventure with the Urantia Book. You will find it the most remarkable book in the field of religion, no doubt, which you have ever read. After having made a careful study of the book and the people who have been associated with it, I am even more impressed than after the first reading.

Would be glad to send you a loan book—or you may purchase it if you wish. Will send other helps under separate cover. . . . Will look forward to meeting with you some time.

Sincerely yours,
Meredith J. Sprunger