UBH ARNOLD ZACHOW to MARIAN ROWLEY

Riverton, Pa., February 1, 1959

Dear Miss Rowley:

May I ask you to intercede for me in regard to a letter sent to me on August 2, 1957, by your Mr. or Dr. Harold E. Karrer. I am a little too ashamed to answer it at this point, but I guarantee you that there have been many reasons why I haven’t. I will only say that immediately after you received my gravitational paper, I became so enthralled with the belief that it could be proven astrophysically that I stopped work and spent two months attempting to sell a research program. Even though I saw the top management of many of the eastern seaboard aircraft and electronic firms, the stage of development that the cosmology had reached was not sufficiently advanced and of course was doomed to failure.

I have not yet recouped financially, but my rewards in all other areas have been so great that the finances have become secondary. For over a year I worked with a good many medical friends to develop a hypothesis on the operation of the brain. . . . However, this work is secondary to the research that I have been doing in the astrophysical field.

I have just now completed a graphical detail presentation of the first attempt of two years ago. I am now starting the write-up, which will probably take me six months. I have been working with two astronomers, a cosmologist and a doctor specializing in electromagnetics. As things now stand I am not able to answer to their complete satisfaction all the astronomers’ questions, but the cosmologist and Dr. in electromagnetics are satisfied. But even more important, I have had several lengthy discussions with some of the pillars of the Catholic Church and [the concept of] integration of the Celestial Hosts with physical Architectural Spheres, verified and positioned in space by Radio Astronomy data, has met with complete acceptance. I have been over this hypothesis with many other technical minds and lay personnel, and so far the acceptance has been quite universal. When my graphs are in final form I will send a copy, but they are still going through revision as I probe into data on galaxies in the outer space realms. Incidentally, the linear gravity concept now becomes understandable and appears to be the force charge responsible for the disc arrangement of the cosmos. I believe that I can now show that this force charge in terms of mathematical relationships, is linear.

If I may change the subject, would you be good enough to tell me what type of doctor is Dr. Senior? Also, were you the person who transcribed the material as it was presented from the Celestial Hosts? I also understand that you were permitted to watch the seraphic departure on the shores of Lake Michigan.⁵ Would you care to give me any of the details on this event? Did you send certain of the papers from the Urantia Book to scientific minds, and if so were any of them astrophysicists and physicists? Were they decent enough to give you any comments, or did they just consider your group be another misfit organization in the world?

May I hear from you at your convenience and I will try not to be such an inconsiderate creature in the future. I do appreciate Mr. Karrer’s offer to present my interpretation and I have every reason to believe that it has been delayed for a purpose.

May we have the opportunity to get together in the near future.

Sincerely,
A. A. Zachow

UBH MARIAN ROWLEY to MEREDITH SPRUNGER

Chicago, Il., February 4, 1959

Dear Meredith:

I’m sorry for the long delay in answering your letter of November 14 to Dr. Sadler, suggesting the possibility of our printing a booklet containing the Evaluation and Summary of the Book. Doctor intended to present it at the Executive Committee meeting in December, but he was ill. It was presented in January and everyone was given a copy to read.

At our February meeting last Monday, it was agreed that you have done an excellent job and this should be very helpful in presenting the Book to someone new. However, the Committee felt that we should reiterate our policy not to authorize or publish anything along this line. We prefer not to make anything of this sort an official publication of the Brotherhood or the Foundation. As you may perhaps know, others have prepared similar documents and we feel there is a place for all of them, but the policy is not to make any one of them official by putting them out in printed form.

Cordially,
Marian

UBH MEREDITH SPRUNGER to MARIAN ROWLEY

Culver, In., February 6, 1959

Dear Marian:

Thank you for your letter. When I submitted the material that might be used to introduce the Urantia Book I thought it might be helpful. In some cases this may be true. But I believe I agree with the decision of the committee.

Have been undergoing a gradual but steady shifting of opinion regarding the Urantia Book and any institution—the Church or the Urantia Brotherhood or any other institution. Increasingly I am of the conviction that we must keep this revelation free from the possibility of being curtailed or captivated by any institution. At the same time we ought to cooperate with and befriend all individuals and all institutions. Therefore I think it is good to keep away from “official” introductions or anything else.

Coming from the church background, this shift to a non-institutional emphasis has been slow but it is probably for the best. I believe that we should emphasize the non-institutional nature of the movement now so that in the days when the Brotherhood is a powerful organization, they will not have any historical precedents for misusing that power by attempting to be an inclusive or normative institution. Please express my appreciation to the committee for the wisdom of their decision. They have been a substantial help in the development of my own conception of the nature and function of the Urantia movement in our modern world.

Sincerely yours,
Meredith

UBH BENJAMIN N. ADAMS to WILLIAM S. SADLER

San Francisco, March 9, 1959

Dear Dr. Sadler:

My last letter was written to you on February 24, 1955⁶—over five [sic] years ago. At that time you did me the honor of answering my letter some four days later. I was one of the pre-publication subscribers to the Urantia Book and received two copies of it when it came off the press in October of 1955.

Since receiving the Book I have read it through and have studied many parts of it over and over. I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have just written to Dr. Earl L. Douglass whom you recently met. In it I have outlined some of my conclusions.
Would you be so kind as to let me know what other critical examinations of the Book may have been made by specialists in other fields such as physics, astronomy, etc.

Very sincerely yours,
Benjamin N. Adams

UBH BENJAMIN N. ADAMS to EARL L. DOUGLASS

San Francisco, March 9, 1959

Dear Earl:

Your letter of March 1 has just come. . . .

Was interested to hear of your visit with Dr. Sadler and Miss Rowley. It is a pleasure that I have not thus far had except by correspondence. However, I do keep studying the Urantia Book which I consider in itself a remarkable phenomenon. The author (or authors) of the Book have not hesitated to “stick their necks out” in so many areas of human knowledge that a critical analysis of the Book should eventually supply a verdict of true or false.

It seems to me that, if I were God, this is the sort of book which I would want to supply my human children on such a benighted and remote speck of dust as the earth. Yet, the best and highest service which can be rendered this Book is a strictly objective and merciless critical analysis thereof.

As I read what it has to say about cosmology, cosmogony, geology, chronology, biology, anthropology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, nuclear physics, etc., etc., I find myself wishing that I had considerably more competence in all of these fields. But I know that I had better stick to my own field of competence which happens to be Biblical studies. In passing, I note a few statements outside of my field of competence which I am inclined to challenge.

On page 477, for instance, is this statement: “There are just 100 distinguishable atomic materializations of space-energy in a dual universe; that is the maximum possible organization of matter in Nebadon.” This seems to me to say that only 100 chemical elements are possible. But I can quote several authorities to the effect that at least 103 elements have been identified and named.

However, turning to the field of Biblical studies, I make the following observations:

1. Page 2074. The teacher Clement of Alexandria and the founder of the famous Catechetical School of that city was “Pantaenus,” not “Poutaenus.” (This may be merely a typographical error.)
2. Page 1557. Philip the Apostle is identified with Philip the Evangelist (or Deacon) who is said to have gone on the mission to Samaria in Acts 8:5.
3. Pages 2057-60. The bestowing of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is represented as occurring on the same day as the ascension and 40 days after the crucifixion. Now this is an obvious error as the very word “Pentecost” means 50 and was supposed to be a week of weeks after the Passover.
4. Page 542. A quotation from the New Testament Book of Hebrews is attributed to Paul. This is amazing in view of the generally sophisticated and critical attitude toward the authorship of most of the books of the Bible. (e.g. pp. 1341-2)
5. Page 1559. Nathaniel’s father is said to be Bartholemew. But Bartholemew is listed by the synoptic writers among the Twelve. It is a patronymic meaning “The Son of Tholmai.” Thus it is logical to suppose that Nathaniel of John’s Gospel is identical with Bartholemew of the synoptics, and that his father’s name was Tholmai.
6. Page 1362. The synagogue teacher is spoken of as the “chazan.” The Hebrew (Aramaic) for this officer is חזן, which would more correctly be transliterated “chazzan” (with a double z).
7. Page 1383 (near bottom). Far to the east they could discern the Jordan Valley and, far beyond, the rocky hills of Moab.” But the rocky hills of Moab were not east of Nazareth but east of the Dead Sea.
8. Page 1648. “Early on the morning of Tuesday, March 30, Jesus and the apostolic party started on their journey to Jerusalem for the Passover.” But Hastings Bible Dictionary [sic], Vol. I, p. 411, gives a table which shows that the latest possible date for the Passover in AD 28 was Tuesday, March 30 (beginning with sunset the previous day, March 29). Thus Jesus and his apostles are represented as setting out for Jerusalem and the Passover on the latest possible date for the Passover to begin. They arrived at Bethany on April 2, three days later. By this time the ceremonies of the Passover Feast and the first fruits of the barley harvest “waved” before the Lord would have been completed. True, the Feast of Unleavened Bread would go on for another three or four days, but it seems strange that they would be deliberately so late in arriving.

It is only fair to note that the Urantia Book does not claim to be infallible (p. 1008). It is also fair to note that on the other side of the ledger are literally thousands of amazingly accurate details harmonizing perfectly with known geographical and chronological facts. For instance, the UB states in opposition to a tremendous weight of tradition that Jesus did not die on Passover Day, but on the day preceding—that in 30 AD Passover began on sunset on Friday, April 7, and continued until sunset, Saturday April 8. This agrees with the point of view of John’s Gospel but disagrees with the synoptics. Moreover, astronomy bears witness that the first visibility of the preceding new moon was at sunset on Friday, March 24. This would then bring Nisan 14, the “Preparation of the Passover,” to the day beginning sunset April 6 (Thursday) and Nisan 15, the Passover itself to the day beginning at sunset Friday, April 7, continuing through Saturday. This agrees with the Gospel of John and the Urantia Book.

No doubt many more discrepancies will be discovered in the Urantia Book. About all that this will prove is that even midway creatures can make mistakes. But if for each mistake we are able to spot, we are enriched by 1,000 thrilling new facts, then we have a spiritual gold mine before us in the Urantia Book, and the ore we dig out assays at about 999/1,000. We do well not to accept it blindly, but it merits a considerable measure of our confidence. . . .

Most cordially yours,
Benjamin N. Adams

UBH WILLIAM S. SADLER to BENJAMIN N. ADAMS

Chicago, Il., March 17, 1959

My dear Rev. Adams:

I was very happy to get your letter of March 9, and I think this is the first really valid criticism I have ever had from of several the last year, but it was evident that the critics had never even superficially read the Urantia Book.

If minor discrepancies were to be found in the Urantia Book I have always suspected that they would probably be found in Part IV because that is the part of the Book that was prepared by the midwayers. The midwayers’ mind level is but a trifle above that of the human mind.

My own preoccupation with the Urantia Book has been along two lines. First, I was concerned as to whether or not this was some fraudulent psychic phenomenon or possibly a case of subconscious disassociation on the part of the subject such as I was familiar with in the fields of automatic writing, trance mediums, etc. I was the last of my family to accept the Urantia papers. I finally decided that the whole thing was beyond my ability to understand.

My next concern had to do with the consistency of the papers. I finally decided that a fraud could not go on the witness stand for twenty-five years, to be examined and cross-examined by 230, and to give more than a million words of testimony and never once contradict himself. I decided that this subject must be telling the truth in order to discuss such a wide range of topics and not once slip into a contradiction.

You ask about others who have critically examined the Urantia Book. From a standpoint of general science I think the studies of the late Sir Hubert Wilkins were perhaps the most extended and exhaustive. For more than twenty years⁷ he periodically spent time in Chicago going over the papers. He would work weeks at a time, ten hours a day, and his final conclusion was that the papers were consistent with the known facts of modern science.

Since the Book was published, a young physicist in Philadelphia has been a very careful student of the physics of the Urantia papers. About a year ago he wrote a paper, with many diagrams, for the Gravitational Society, in which he advocated that the cosmology of the Urantia Book was the only one that was possible from the gravitational standpoint.

I was very interested in your criticism as proposed in your letter to Dr. Douglass. I would offer the following comments on these criticisms:

1. I think the spelling of the name of the teacher in Alexandria is undoubtedly an error in transcribing the manuscript into typewriting. An “an” was undoubtedly transcribed as a “ou.” I remember when we were sometimes in doubt as to whether a letter was an “a” or a “u” in the manuscript. Of course, we who were preparing this matter, did not know the name of this teacher so could have easily made this mistake.
2. As far as I could detect, there is only one Philip recognized in the Urantia Book. I note what you say in this matter.
3. Now as to the Bestowal of the Spirit of Truth—the possible discrepancy between the end of one paper and the beginning of another. We all noted it one time and discussed it further when the Book was going to press. You should remember that the midwayers prepared a narrative that was many times larger than was finally given us as Part IV of the Urantia Book. It may be that in deletion some difficulties were encountered. Our understanding is that the prayer meeting which Peter conducts at the close of one paper is not the same as that at the opening of the next paper. The one ended at the day of Ascension, the other opened at the day of Pentecost.
4. About Paul and Hebrews—of course, we all puzzled about that the same as you, and it occurs two or three times in the papers. We have finally come to the conclusion that it was of composite authorship and the Apostle Paul had something to do with the presentation.
5. About Nathaniel’s father I can offer no suggestions except that I know that the manuscript was very clear that it was Bartholomew.
6. About the spelling of “chazan.” Our mandate forbade us in any way to alter the text of the manuscript, but gave us jurisdiction over capitalization, spelling, and punctuation. We were told to select our authority and stick to it. Evidently, the authority we chose spelled “chazan” with one z.
7. Your notation about Moab is a puzzler to me. We have just looked in the atlas, and, of course, you are right. I have no explanation for this matter—either a mistake of the midwayers or a mistake in copying. I cannot say, but evidently you are right in this matter.
8. The intricacies of Jesus’ crucifixion and the day of Passover I am not competent to appraise. In fact, I was not aware that there was any difference in the Gospel of John and the Synoptics, but I am glad that you are inclined to agree with the Urantia Book.

I was indeed cheered to get such an encouraging estimate of the worth of the Book from one who has made such a careful study of it. I am taking the liberty of sending you a copy of an outline which I gave to a dozen ministers who came to meet with me about six months ago. I told them that while I was unable to explain to them about how we had got the Book, I was able to explain to them how we had not got the Book.

I do hope that we will have the pleasure of seeing you and Mrs. Adams one of these days. I am sure, if you have the occasion to come back East, you will not fail to let us have a visit with you.

With all best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
William S. Sadler