Revelatory Permissions and Limitations

Table of Contents
Introduction
Relationship to Social Development
Crosscurrents and Unique Challenges
How The Urantia Book Gets Misread and Misunderstood
aaaa1) Mercury’s rotation
aaaa2) Misunderstanding not inspired
Personalities, Understandings, and Facts
Literary License
aaaa1) Coined terminology and etymologically enriched lists
aaaa2) Using and redefining existing terminology
aaaa3) Teasers and reader captivation phrases
aaaa4) The edge of the rules
Related Quotes

Introduction

If Urantia Book believers want to be teachers and leaders but dismiss and denounce Urantia Book teachings because they are not popular with unscientific social trends, including even basic acknowledgement of human beings as a bisexual expression of life, why do revelatory permissions and limitations even matter? If cultural trends are against genetic science related to racial differences and whether intelligence has a hereditary aspect, is there any hope of understanding human history or coordinating true scientific progress with the revelation? Why put our attention towards how the revelatory permissions and limitations are defined and brilliantly executed in this extraordinary text, if there is not sufficient spiritual courage to address negative cultural trends that attack Urantia Book teachings?

The world demonstrates a desperate need for Urantia Book teachings on genetics and family. People are literally losing their minds, destroying their souls, and creating social chaos over these issues right now. The loss of scientific sensibilities is extraordinary and extraordinarily dangerous! How long will excuses like “the world is not ready for these teachings” be used to avoid mustering the courage to champion revelatory teachings on these subjects!?! (See: Genetics Introductions, Mutations, and Evolution: a Urantia Book perspective and Is The Urantia Book “gay friendly?”)

Relationship to Social Development

Paper 101, Section 4: Limitations of Revelation probably has created more trouble for Urantia Book scholarship and outreach efforts than any other section in The Urantia Book. Because it is foundational to understanding and appreciating the revelation, while also being so terribly misunderstood by readers who want to be teachers and leaders, a better understanding of this section is crucial for fostering positive cultural developments. Individually and collectively, we suffer the negative consequences associated with misreading and misunderstanding The Urantia Book. Misreading and misunderstanding the text demonstrably undermines scholarship and outreach efforts.

An expression of these collective shortcomings is found on Wikipedia under the heading: Criticism of its science. From the start, Wikipedia has unfairly discredited The Urantia Book, in part, because of reader-believers feed the problem. As a primary Internet research tool for much of the world, the importance of fair treatment by Wikipedia regarding Urantia Book credibility as a revelation cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, the publication of Urantia: the great Cult Mystery by Martin Gardner also helped get things off to a very bad start with Wikipedia editors.

Credibility is THE issue. People do not want to read The Urantia Book because they do not believe it could possibly be authentic. Making that possibility real and intriguing is the job of adherents. This revelation is designed to help get us back on the right path AND to authoritatively correct profoundly misguided and unscientific trends in our culture. Reasonably, people are not inclined to be corrected by a source they do not consider credible.

Crosscurrents and Unique Challenges

A progressive, evolutionary appreciation of revelatory teachings is one thing. In contrast, intentionally or unintentionally, avoiding, forgetting, rejecting, obscuring, diluting, or twisting revelatory teachings at best retards progress and at worst destroys it. Naturally, the text discusses problems with the development of Christianity related to this issue. In contrast to teachings that were embodied in a person, this epochal revelation comes to us in written form. How does this difference impact believers and leaders being accused of misrepresenting the teachings? Bible scholars appealing to Western culture struggle with issues involving the interpretation, translation, and inclusion of material original published in other languages. People have different interpretations of The Urantia Book, of course. But, typos and such aside, there is consensus about the text being the text—no translation, alteration, or inclusion issues here.

Consider that some Urantia Book teachings about the spread of Christianity can be used as a justification for avoiding and twisting Urantia Book teachings, justified as wisely making evolutionary compromises with contemporary culture. Playing the role of modern day Paul’s looks like the evolutionary path forward to some readers.

(89:9.3)  The ancient social brotherhoods were based on the rite of blood drinking; the early Jewish fraternity was a sacrificial blood affair. Paul started out to build a new Christian cult on “the blood of the everlasting covenant.” And while he may have unnecessarily encumbered Christianity with teachings about blood and sacrifice, he did once and for all make an end of the doctrines of redemption through human or animal sacrifices. His theologic compromises indicate that even revelation must submit to the graduated control of evolution. According to Paul, Christ became the last and all-sufficient human sacrifice; the divine Judge is now fully and forever satisfied.

(195:1.2)  Christianity came into existence and triumphed over all contending religions primarily because of two things:

(195:1.3)  1. The Greek mind was willing to borrow new and good ideas even from the Jews.

(195:1.4)  2. Paul and his successors were willing but shrewd and sagacious compromisers; they were keen theologic traders.

(195:0.12)  Wisely or unwisely, these early leaders of Christianity deliberately compromised the ideals of Jesus in an effort to save and further many of his ideas. And they were eminently successful. But mistake not! these compromised ideals of the Master are still latent in his gospel, and they will eventually assert their full power upon the world.

An argument can be made that ideals are more important than ideas and, therefore, there is wisdom in holding true to ideals, while compromising ideas to contemporary cultural considerations? But what happens if leaders of a written revelation try to make compromises and get totally exposed for it? What if the ideas are so unscientific as to constitute an attack on science and education?

We are in a completely different age, technologically speaking. For the first time, an epochal revelation has arrived as a book. During this time in our evolutionary development, intellectual progress is intimately intertwined with spiritual progress. How will the primary organizations be judged on high for their relationship to the issues of our day?

(140:3.20)  “In the great day of the kingdom judgment, many will say to me, ‘Did we not prophesy in your name and by your name do many wonderful works?’ But I will be compelled to say to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me you who are false teachers.’ But every one who hears this charge and sincerely executes his commission to represent me before men even as I have represented my Father to you, shall find an abundant entrance into my service and into the kingdom of the heavenly Father.”

(140:1.4)  “But for you, my children, and for all others who would follow you into this kingdom, there is set a severe test. Faith alone will pass you through its portals, but you must bring forth the fruits of my Father’s spirit if you would continue to ascend in the progressive life of the divine fellowship. Verily, verily, I say to you, not every one who says, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but rather he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

(90:2.9)  Ever and anon, true prophets and teachers arose to denounce and expose shamanism. Even the vanishing red man had such a prophet within the past hundred years, the Shawnee Tenskwatawa, who predicted the eclipse of the sun in 1806 and denounced the vices of the white man. Many true teachers have appeared among the various tribes and races all through the long ages of evolutionary history. And they will ever continue to appear to challenge the shamans or priests of any age who oppose general education and attempt to thwart scientific progress.

Are our social leaders willing to boldly stand up for the teachings? Do personal considerations adversely influence organizational policy decisions?

Consider that those associated with this epochal revelation face general challenges in a novel way. We are the evolutionary process, but we are dealing with a book that does not evolve or adapt. Relative to our times, we do well to consider what it means to put new wine in old skins.

Also, consider how the unconscious ego might count the costs regarding new discoveries and scientific advances that lend credibility to Urantia Book history. Would the unconscious ego be sensitive about ridiculing comparisons to people who believe in the Bible and think the world is 6,000 years old? Would it be a lot easier and more fun for the ego to jump into astronomy discussions with non believers, as someone who is willing to quickly dismiss Urantia Book teachings in favor of the science du jour? Sometimes we get the right answer to a question for the wrong reasons and The Urantia Book sometimes gives us scientific answers without giving the explanation. How dangerous could this intersection turn out to be for readers?

How The Urantia Book Gets Misread and Misunderstood

Wikipedia’s Urantia Book page, under the heading “Criticisms of science,” opens the topic with the following:

In Paper 101, “The Real Nature of Religion,” the authors write:

We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired.

As pointed out by the likes of Martin Gardner, the science in The Urantia Book reflects the views that prevailed at the time the book originated. The claim by the authors that no unknown scientific discoveries could be imparted can function as a ruse to allow mistakes to be dismissed later. The appeal to convenience that post-1955 scientific knowledge is not being presented is consistent with a book written by humans in the 1950s instead of celestial beings with superior knowledge.

Note the focus on science, even though the authors specify that it is Urantia Book history which can be counted on to stand the test of time.

From subatomic physics to astronomy, the frontier of science has a psychosocial attraction, an emotional appeal, not found in other fields of study. Intellectually speaking, the hard sciences are hard. Psychologically speaking, people are competitive. Scientists sometimes change our world quickly and powerfully. They demand respect and get it in greater measure compared to historians. Non scientists attach themselves to the work of scientists in an effort to feel more intelligent and powerful, envious of their social standing and looking to gain a measure of it when conversing with other non scientists. These are the games that people play, whether or not they are Urantia Book believers.

Consequently, within the Urantia Book community, the scientists among us are looking to hammer a nail. What nails down Urantia Book credibility, however, is the history, not the science.

Valid and valuable as the hard sciences to study in comparison to The Urantia Book, the science conversations raise all kinds of questions related to revelatory limitations. These questions, transformed into opinions, make great fodder for critical non believers. Martin Gardner’s book, Urantia: The great cult mystery, focused much more on science than history. Wikipedia, not surprisingly, followed suit, primarily referencing his book. Note how the Wikipedia “Criticisms of science” section focuses on hard science issues, uses a typo to criticize the history, and implies that Dr. William Sadler’s idea about eugenics are in taught in The Urantia Book.

From one perspective, we are all always accountable for our actions. If Wikipedia gets something wrong or is otherwise unfair in their treatment of The Urantia Book, then those involved are responsible.

From another perspective, Urantia Book believers have a history of promoting incorrect and unfair interpretations of the text. Wikipedia editors have been led astray by those who should have been trustworthy for a well reasoned and positively inclined interpretation of the text.

Sincerity does not seem to be the issue. Presumably, neutral enough non believers and even Urantia Book  believers, at times, are involved with creating the Wikipedia page. Consider that enormous amounts of sincerity can accompany incorrect statements and unfair treatment. Life gets challenging because these things can occur together.

Below, two examples of misreadings and misunderstandings are identified in an effort to illustrate the breadth and depth of the problem. As examples related to Wikipedia’s review of The Urantia Book, they serve as guideposts for appreciating the nature and type of overlapping issues involved with this study.

1) Mercury’s rotation

The UBtheNEWS: Mercury’s Rotation Report needed to be written because reader-believers have both misread the text regarding Mercury’s rotation and often even failed to understand what is meant by rotation. This report is not a corroboration issue, which, generally, is the reason for writing UBtheNEWS reports. It is really more of a tutorial.

There never was a contradiction between what is said in The Urantia Book about Mercury’s rotation vs. scientific beliefs because The Urantia Book is not specific about the issue of whether Mercury still rotates. Therefore, changes in the scientific community on this issue have no direct bearing on Urantia Book credibility issues. All we see here is that the authors, presumably with knowledge of Mercury’s rotation, did not specify that it stopped rotating, as they did with the moon. Why?

Note how this issue is different than stating that Tycho’s Nova was caused by a double star explosion. See UBtheNEWS: Tycho’s Nova Report. In 1955, there was no scientific opinion about whether a double star explosion was the cause of this supernova.  But at the time of publication, the scientific community was very much aligned behind the belief that Mercury had stopped rotating. Consider that with Mercury’s rotation, there is no need for an “authoritative elimination of error” (an issue that is more fully addressed below) because scientists would eventually be able to figure it out for themselves, unlike issues related to the peculiarities of our genetic history, for instance.

The authors should be given credit for avoiding specific reference to something that scientists thought was a settled point of science but later came to find out differently. Our failure as a community to read carefully, brush up on the subject sufficiently, and address the issue responsibly is preserved in infamy both in Martin Gardner’s book, Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery and on Wikipedia, which states:

The book repeats the mistaken idea that planets close to a sun will gradually spin slower until one hemisphere is left always turned to the sun due to tidal locking, citing Mercury as an example. Scientists at the time of the book’s origin thought one side of Mercury always faced the Sun, just as one side of the Moon always faces the Earth. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered however that Mercury rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the Sun.^[106] Scientists further established that Mercury is locked in this spin rate in a stable resonance of 3 spins for every 2 orbits, and it is not slowing and so will never have one side left always turned to the Sun.^[109]

Footnote 106 above is a reference to Gardner’s book.

Ironically, an issue that Urantia Book readers should use to demonstrate how the revelators follow the revelatory rules, while simultaneously demonstrating how scientists need to be more humble, continues to be used to do pretty much the opposite.

2) Misunderstanding not inspired

Urantia Book culture long has been plagued by highly opinionated misunderstandings of the following:

(101:4.2)  …  The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge.

Before addressing how “not inspired” gets misunderstood, consider why this might occur. Does the misunderstanding of “not inspired” make it easier to attempt coordinating Urantia Book teachings with scientific developments? Does the misunderstanding help readers avoid non believer criticisms of Urantia Book teachings? How motivating and effective might such factors be on an unconscious level in influencing interpretations of the text?

Urantia Book readers use “not inspired” as a way to say, “The text is not as good as it could be because it does not have the added benefit of being an inspired work.” When any issues of science or history comes up, it gets employed in conversation like a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card. This attack on the reliability of the text in favor of the science du jour is has the effect of making outreach conversations easier and liberates one from having to do the hard work—pointing out flaws and shortcomings of contemporary science.

The problem is that, even if an increasing percentage of scientists are theists, this does not mean that theistic perspectives are applied to science where they are needed the most. The scientific community is dominated by materialistic and mechanistic thinking and theories, when it comes to genetic coding, sex and race differences, or astronomical structures, movements, and observations that defy explanation. With increasingly untenable attitudes about materialism being used by the scientific community, we should expect to see developments that are not actual advances.

So, before directly addressing how not inspired gets misinterpreted with respect to non human authors, pause to consider how not inspired needs to be applied to the scientists, who work with materialistically constrained theories. How inspiring is it when geneticists dance around issues related to the intelligent design of genetic coding? How inspiring is it when biologists ignore evolutionary leaps that need to be recognized but cannot be explained by a survival of the fittest evolutionary theory based on micro adjustments?

Ironically, those two sentences quoted above from 101:4.2 have evoked waves of intellectually resolute and emotionally charged anthropomorphic misinterpretations. (A “hidden” irony is that non believers do not realize and critically respond to how reader-believers show up so anthropomorphically inclined). The structure of the anthropomorphic misinterpretations is predicated on the idea that human culture advances in its understanding of theology and cosmology in three ways (not including the heralds):

(1) Not inspired: through human efforts (study, conversation, and reflection) or
(2) Inspired: through inner mystical experiences (prophecies or the Bible taken as a whole) or
(3) Epochal: through the outer presence of non human beings making contact (like epochal revelations, be they written or incarnate).

From a human standpoint, the lowest order of developing an understanding of something is a not inspired human effort. The next highest order of understanding is to be personally inspired.* Having something external and non human that can be collectively experienced—epochal— stands as the highest order of gaining theological and cosmological understandings.

(*Beliefs held about the Bible being the inspired Word of God may straddle or blur the distinctions between (2) and (3). But the distinction does not make a difference because misdirected anthropomorphic interpretations occur just the same. Wikipedia’s introduction to the topic states, “Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.” As a tendency of human psychology, anthropomorphic thinking occurs across all three categories when people develop their theological and cosmological understandings. The catalysts for developing an understanding add flavors to anthropomorphic concoctions, but they are secondary to the substance of what is being dished up.

This freedom to be or not to be anthropomorphically minded is why progressively minded people can take passages from the Bible that are anthropomorphic on the surface and interpret them in ways that transcend the less refined level of the writing. This is why a Urantia Book believer and a non believer can have a discussion with neither one of them being sensitive to the issue of anthropomorphic misinterpretation.  Whether a person takes not inspired to be referential to prophecies or the Bible or both matters not. The issue here is whether people anthropomorphically confuse the nature of our existence with that of the revelators. A person’s actual beliefs about The Urantia Book are a secondary consideration that comes after respecting how The Urantia Book’s origins and authors are depicted as non human.)

In 101:4.2, the authors take time to distinguish human from non human perspectives and inner from outer experiences. Their limitations have to do with respecting our evolutionary development, not with limitations related to their experiences or conveyable knowledge. If friends go to Chicago and come back with stories about the trip, neither their recounting or our repeating of the related knowledge has nothing to do with inspiration. And because the story associated with this epochal revelation is one in which the human conduit was not engaging the process from a conscious state or otherwise choosing to participate in the process, for believers, at least, this means the information in the book should not be classified as having inspired roots; this revelation claims to have only epochal and not inspired roots. In fact, the authors often address their own limitations of knowledge and understanding.

Note how these comments support the above perspective:

(15:1.1)  Within the limited range of the records, observations, and memories of the generations of a million or a billion of your short years, to all practical intents and purposes, Urantia and the universe to which it belongs are experiencing the adventure of one long and uncharted plunge into new space; but according to the records of Uversa, in accordance with older observations, in harmony with the more extensive experience and calculations of our order, and as a result of conclusions based on these and other findings, we know that the universes are engaged in an orderly, well-understood, and perfectly controlled processional, swinging in majestic grandeur around the First Great Source and Center and his residential universe.

(15:1.2)  We have long since discovered that the seven superuniverses traverse a great ellipse, a gigantic and elongated circle. Your solar system and other worlds of time are not plunging headlong, without chart and compass, into unmapped space. The local universe to which your system belongs is pursuing a definite and well-understood counterclockwise course around the vast swing that encircles the central universe. This cosmic path is well charted and is just as thoroughly known to the superuniverse star observers as the orbits of the planets constituting your solar system are known to Urantia astronomers.

Why is it that Urantia Book teachings are not more effective in discouraging and interrupting anthropomorphic tendencies?

Consider that one aspect of the second order of understanding—inspired—is encouraged, even admonished. Consider how such teachings below might tantalize the ego in unconscious ways that influence how the text is interpreted.

(155:6.7)  I admonish you to give up the practice of always quoting the prophets of old and praising the heroes of Israel, and instead aspire to become living prophets of the Most High and spiritual heroes of the coming kingdom. To honor the God-knowing leaders of the past may indeed be worth while, but why, in so doing, should you sacrifice the supreme experience of human existence: finding God for yourselves and knowing him in your own souls?

(137:8.4)  Before Jesus preached this memorable sermon on the kingdom of God, the first pretentious effort of his public career, he read from the Scriptures these passages: “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy people. Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king; he will save us. Yahweh is my king and my God. He is a great king over all the earth. Loving-kindness is upon Israel in this kingdom. Blessed be the glory of the Lord for he is our King.”

(52:7.13)  It is the mortals of such an age who are described as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, an exalted people; and you shall show forth the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into this marvelous light.”

It seems that the written form of this epochal revelation opens the door for confusing it with inspired revelations. This general confusion has developed in two ways:

(1) The mysterious origins. The Urantia Book believers continually need to distinguish it from a channeled writing—a process involving a willing participant, who wants to participate in an experience and consciously self-initiates it. Non believers are not required to accept a definition of channeled that puts The Urantia Book outside of the definition. The unique origin of The Urantia Book invites confusion; believers and non believers make poor comparisons to other writings, ideas, and perspectives.

(2) There has been a notable subculture within the Urantia Book community of people who engage in or, at least, give some credence to, what is generally referred to as channeled communications. The Teaching Mission being most known for this. No matter how channelers describe their process, no matter what terminology they prefer to use, they are all trying to put themselves into the inspired category. They do not understand that when Jesus encouraged his apostles to become “living prophets,” he was not encouraging them to become mystics—seers like Isaiah. He was encouraging them to consciously address themselves to the issues of the day as the men they were. Today, people want to hide out behind their mystical experiences, rather than take on the challenge of being completely responsible for what they are communicating.

Why would a person of faith not want to be a living prophet amongst an exalted people, even part of the royal priesthood to a holy nation? Quicker the better, right? Can we make this easier, not harder?

Are thoughts like this influential on an unconscious level in a manner that is likely to invite problems?

This issue of misunderstanding “not inspired” is such a longstanding and widespread problem, pointing out specific examples would be unfair to those individuals. But if you have or do come across examples of these misunderstandings, note how the emotional tone and content are offered, AS IF those involved with epochal revelations need inspiration to get the job done. Note the (unintended) sophistry of pretending that they are like us, AS IF anthropomorphic thinking only confuses differences between man and God but never differences between man and the celestial hosts.

An anthropomorphic misunderstanding, naturally, leads to even more confused ideas when people start opining about how (actual, not presumed) advances in science relate to Urantia Book teachings.

Anthropomorphic misinterpretations are especially prevalent when people attempt to coordinate Urantia Book teachings with astronomy. The Urantia Book provides extensive astronomical information and encourages caution regarding the limitations of our technologies. We are told of forces and structures, unknown to science, that operate uphold and balance creation. How are Urantia Book astronomy scholars supposed to coordinate such widely divergent initial assumptions and points of reference? Does the authoritative nature of The Urantia Book make the outreach experience easier or harder, especially with astronomers? Does greater authority require greater credibility?

A certain contingent of Urantia Book culture has long been known (in the United States, at least) for enthusiastically drawing parallels to the godless philosophies of Star Trek. This is another expression of anthropomorphic tendencies being projected onto interpretations of not inspired. Why try to leverage such a peculiarly misdirected fictional perspective for encouraging a text that focuces on theistic overcare? The Urantia Book exists as an actually example of the contradiction!?!

Overcare is used six times. Four times are directly related to the Universal Father’s overcare. But this reference, perhaps, holds more insight than the others:

(48:4.7)  3. Prophetic joy. It will perhaps be difficult for mortals to envisage this phase of humor, but we do get a peculiar satisfaction out of the assurance “that all things work together for good”—for spirits and morontians as well as for mortals. This aspect of celestial humor grows out of our faith in the loving overcare of our superiors and in the divine stability of our Supreme Directors.

Have we gotten so accustomed to rebellion and default as to lose touch with what it means truly to have overcare (as well as inner care)? Are we missing out on sharing an aspect of celestial humor and prophetic joy because of this?

Personalities, Understandings, and Facts

People tend to have questions about something in particular. So, when considering whether statements in The Urantia Book are reliable over time because of revelatory permission vs. in need of revision because of revelatory limitations, the tendency is to try to make sense of  specific statements about history or science in comparison to new discoveries or scientific advances. Often, there is a preferred perspective on the comparison. When this occurs, then preferences have a tendency to warp general analysis of permissions and limitations in the service of the desired answer. This warped analytic structure then impacts other questions and areas of study.

Here we focus on statements that exemplify the teachings about permissions and limitations. This fosters structuring foundational thoughts about the general rules, which can be supportive when addressing comparisons that are more at the edge of a rule than a good example of it.

In fact, working on the Astronomy study aid, which involves numerous challenging applications of the permissions and limitations, inspired this undertaking. Consequently, the Astronomy study aid is largely “On Hold” until this study aid has an initial draft completed.

One of the benefits of this broader and more general approach is that it invites reflection on how revelatory permissions and limitations, concerning specific beings and types of created beings, might justifiably influence our interpretation of the text in specific instances related to science or history. When teachings make connections concerning the relationship of celestial administrative roles to the management of material creation, to what degree can we reasonably use this as a guide for interpreting the text on issues related to material facts?

Revelatory limitations covers more than unearned knowledge or scientific understandings. Describing universe personalities raises a mix of issues related to permissions, limitations, and editorial discretion. This issue of editorial discretion can be easily missed, if overly dichotomous thinking dominates our study.

Is something a permission or limitation? Maybe neither. Maybe it is a matter of editorial discretion. Consider:

(30:0.2)  It is not possible to formulate comprehensive and entirely consistent classifications of the personalities of the grand universe because all of the groups are not revealed. It would require numerous additional papers to cover the further revelation required to systematically classify all groups. Such conceptual expansion would hardly be desirable as it would deprive the thinking mortals of the next thousand years of that stimulus to creative speculation which these partially revealed concepts supply. It is best that man not have an overrevelation; it stifles imagination.

Note above the practical consideration of space limitations. How do space limitation issues sometimes make it more difficult to address issues related to permissions and limitations?

(13:1.19)  6. SERAPHINGTON. This sphere is the “bosom of the Son and the Spirit” and is the home world of the vast hosts of unrevealed beings created by the Son and the Spirit. This is also the destiny sphere of all ministering orders of the angelic hosts, including supernaphim, seconaphim, and seraphim. There also serve in the central and outlying universes many orders of superb spirits who are not “ministering spirits to those who shall be heirs of salvation.” All these spirit workers in all levels and realms of universe activities look upon Seraphington as their Paradise home.

(13:1.20)  The secrets of Seraphington involve a threefold mystery, only one of which I may mention—the mystery of seraphic transport. The ability of various orders of seraphim and allied spirit beings to envelop within their spirit forms all orders of nonmaterial personalities and to carry them away on lengthy interplanetary journeys, is a secret locked up in the sacred sectors of Seraphington. The transport seraphim comprehend this mystery, but they do not communicate it to the rest of us, or perhaps they cannot. The other mysteries of Seraphington pertain to the personal experiences of types of spirit servers as yet not revealed to mortals. And we refrain from discussing the secrets of such closely related beings because you can almost comprehend such near orders of existence, and it would be akin to betrayal of trust to present even our partial knowledge of such phenomena.

Along with generally acknowledging the existence of cosmological secrets beyond the permissions of this specific epochal revelation, note also the suggestive implications of 13:1.20. Are such angels created with an abundance of reserves, so that, if midwayers are lost due to rebellion and/or default, accomplishing celestially administrative activities is not compromised by the loss? Maybe it is better to have native beings handle certain matters but also acceptable to have an angelic order do it. Are we looking at a situation similar to how Melchizedeks are created and available for emergency situations, except that with midwayers and angels there is less that can said related to this order of “backup beings?”

(77:8.12)  Many of the more literal phenomena ascribed to angels have been performed by the secondary midway creatures. When the early teachers of the gospel of Jesus were thrown into prison by the ignorant religious leaders of that day, an actual “angel of the Lord” “by night opened the prison doors and brought them forth.” But in the case of Peter’s deliverance after the killing of James by Herod’s order, it was a secondary midwayer who performed the work ascribed to an angel. [Finding this reference led to the cross-reference study: Angel of the Lord.]

Consider the human tendency to ascribe material interventions to midwayers instead of the order of angels about which we know very little. How might such a tendency also lead to incorrect conclusions regarding our study of scientific and historic information in The Urantia Book? Christians believe that the presence of angels explains Peter’s deliverance. Here it is indicated that the understanding about celestial administrative intervention is truthful but the belief about the facts related to the truth are incorrect. What type of confusing associations of truth and fact await our efforts to address the more challenging issues of science and history presented in The Urantia Book?

On numerous occasions, when attempting to portray the personal nature of God, the authors express their frustrations with the limitations of language, not the revelatory mandate. When certain orders of created beings are not going to be discussed, this is specifically mentioned. This indicates that information about personalities can be used as an anchor for interpreting astronomical information that otherwise might be subject to revelatory limitations. For instance, when The Urantia Book says the seven superuniverses are organized with respect to the associative possibilities of the Trinity and goes on to elaborate about the specific dynamics and mechanics of the superuniverses, this is intended by the authors to be taken as specific and literal revelatory information. It does not concern the development of human wisdom or scientific progress. And by extension, this would be equally true for descriptions of the Local Universes and their relationship to major and minor sectors. Review Paper 41: Section 1 to get grounded in how these interconnections between personalities and astronomical structures are described.

Literary License

Dichotomous thinking—permissions vs. limitations—is inherently problematic with this topic because it does not account for instances of literary license. Consequently, developing a perspective on the revelation’s permissions and limitations is not the best place to start. Looking first at literary license issues helps to ensure that analysis of permissions and limitations is not bias towards consideration of mandates and boundaries. Identifying where literary license is used can provide insight into whether information is even close to the boundary of revelatory permissions vs. limitations.

1) Coined terminology and etymologically enriched lists

Coined terminology

The need for creatively balancing revelatory permissions and limitations shows up immediately in the Foreword:

(0:0.1)  IN THE MINDS of the mortals of Urantia—that being the name of your world—there exists great confusion respecting the meaning of such terms as God, divinity, and deity. …

(0:0.2)  It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning. [Emphasis added.]

Aside from being content that, by its nature, confronts anthropomorphic thinking, consider also how the superficial contradiction between the first sentence and the second paragraph can be resolved simply by applying the concept of overcare. The larger truth being conveyed is that our planet was created, named, and cared for long before human beings ever existed. Consequently, no terrestrial would have those connotations.

Consider how this etymological interpretation for Urantia points to a larger than human perspective: Known in the heavens as (Uran) the “World of the Cross” (t, ia).

Does the etymological interpretation imply a necessity for coining the word Urantia? Are all the teachings about overcare insufficient for fulfilling the revelatory mandates? Or is this better taken as encouragement to not be overly dichotomous or legalistic in our thinking? Maybe this is lesson one in appreciating that empowering the revelators with a degree of creative discretion was part of the process.

Etymologically enriched lists

Given the broad scope of material being covered in this revelation, obviously, managing the length of the text would be an issue. Note how the revelators make use of the coined terminology option to supercharge the revelation with meaning and value, while also efficiently providing additional facts.:

(32:2.12)  The universe of Nebadon now swings far to the south and east in the superuniverse circuit of Orvonton. The nearest neighboring Local Universes are: Avalon, Henselon, Sanselon, Portalon, Wolvering, Fanoving, and Alvoring.

(41:2.1)  While the Master Physical Controllers serve with the power centers throughout the grand universe, their functions in a local system, such as Satania, are more easy of comprehension. Satania is one of one hundred local systems which make up the administrative organization of the constellation of Norlatiadek, having as immediate neighbors the systems of Sandmatia, Assuntia, Porogia, Sortoria, Rantulia, and Glantonia. The Norlatiadek systems differ in many respects, but all are evolutionary and progressive, very much like Satania.

Consider how these lists reinforce the inclusion of so many personalities and types of beings, all working together as anchors for the scope of permitted revelatory information.

2) Using and redefining existing terminology

Regarding both history and science, the revelators demonstrate a notable range of permissions that are intended to have a direct impact on how historians and scientists proceed with our cultural development in those areas.

For instance, in sharp contrast to Star Trek’s Prime Directive against interfering with the “natural” development of terrestrial civilizations, note in the following instance how the revelators specifically encourage us to use our terminology as they redefine it for us.

(64:3.5)  850,000 years ago the superior Badonan tribes began a warfare of extermination directed against their inferior and animalistic neighbors. In less than one thousand years most of the borderland animal groups of these regions had been either destroyed or driven back to the southern forests. This campaign for the extermination of inferiors brought about a slight improvement in the hill tribes of that age. And the mixed descendants of this improved Badonite stock appeared on the stage of action as an apparently new people—the Neanderthal race.

Use of the mesotron invites consideration of numerous issues related to revelatory parameters and opportunities. Mesotron refers to what is now called a meson. Here is Wikipedia’s explanation of the term’s history:

“From theoretical considerations, in 1934 Hideki Yukawa predicted the existence and the approximate mass of the “meson” as the carrier of the nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together. If there were no nuclear force, all nuclei with two or more protons would fly apart due to electromagnetic repulsion. Yukawa called his carrier particle the meson, from μέσος mesos, the Greek word for “intermediate”, because its predicted mass was between that of the electron and that of the proton, which has about 1,836 times the mass of the electron. Yukawa or Carl David Anderson, who discovered the muon, had originally named the particle the “mesotron”, but he was corrected by the physicist Werner Heisenberg (whose father was a professor of Greek at the University of Munich). Heisenberg pointed out that there is no “tr” in the Greek word “mesos”.”

Note that the revelators are specific in identifying the mass of mesotrons in comparison to electrons and that from electron to mesotron to proton an order of magnitude pattern of increase emerges. The following five paragraphs contain all references to mesotron and its permutations.

(42:8.3) The charged protons and the uncharged neutrons of the nucleus of the atom are held together by the reciprocating function of the mesotron, a particle of matter 180 times as heavy as the electron. Without this arrangement the electric charge carried by the protons would be disruptive of the atomic nucleus.

(42:8.4) As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that the electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence. Thus does the mesotron function as an “energy-carrier” particle which mightily contributes to the nuclear stability of the atom.

(42:8.5)  The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron “energy carrier,” which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certain small uncharged particles.

(42:8.6)  The mesotron explains certain cohesive properties of the atomic nucleus, but it does not account for the cohesion of proton to proton nor for the adhesion of neutron to neutron. The paradoxical and powerful force of atomic cohesive integrity is a form of energy as yet undiscovered on Urantia.

(42:8.7) These mesotrons are found abundantly in the space rays which so incessantly impinge upon your planet.

The following abstract, published in American Journal of Physics, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 5-13 (1952), is from a Harvard study.

3) Teasers and reader captivation phrases

Teasers

The effort to lead humanity into the (re)discovery of extraordinary archaeological and anthropological artifacts is exemplified by these two unnecessary but intriguing commentaries:

(77:4.8)  The elaborate records left by the Sumerians describe the site of a remarkable settlement which was located on the Persian Gulf near the earlier city of Dilmun. The Egyptians called this city of ancient glory Dilmat, while the later Adamized Sumerians confused both the first and second Nodite cities with Dalamatia and called all three Dilmun. And already have archaeologists found these ancient Sumerian clay tablets which tell of this earthly paradise “where the Gods first blessed mankind with the example of civilized and cultured life.” And these tablets, descriptive of Dilmun, the paradise of men and God, are now silently resting on the dusty shelves of many museums.

(77:5.10)  This center of civilization was situated in the region east of the southern end of the Caspian Sea, near the Kopet Dagh. A short way up in the foothills of Turkestan are the vestiges of what was onetime the Adamsonite headquarters of the violet race. In these highland sites, situated in a narrow and ancient fertile belt lying in the lower foothills of the Kopet range, there successively arose at various periods four diverse cultures respectively fostered by four different groups of Adamson’s descendants. It was the second of these groups which migrated westward to Greece and the islands of the Mediterranean. The residue of Adamson’s descendants migrated north and west to enter Europe with the blended stock of the last Andite wave coming out of Mesopotamia, and they were also numbered among the Andite-Aryan invaders of India.

Got to love that editorial discretion when it comes to dropping hints. Only wonders how it might facilitate peace on earth and the brotherhood of man to follow up on such obvious HINTS.

Reader captivation phrases

Andromeda’s distance, provided in the context of distinguishing its region in space relative to our superuniverse, is expressed with literary emphasis.

(15:4.7)  …  There are not many sun-forming nebulae active in Orvonton at the present time, though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, is very active. This far-distant nebula is visible to the naked eye, and when you view it, pause to consider that the light you behold left those distant suns almost one million years ago.

See Topical Study: Reader Captivation Phrases.

One of the challenges we face is that not all scientific developments truly represent progressive, but all the scientists promoting positions that are not progressive believe that they are (at best, assuming the money has not gotten in the way too much). And those scientists are credentialed. Relatively quiet zones with counter rotation dynamics that warp our instrument readings in ways we do not understand, if true, should be expected to create all kinds of problems for astronomers, similar to the way the Nodite and Adamic genetic developments confound geneticists and anthropologists alike.

One of the most challenging developments that can occur, when trying to advance something on the edge of science, is to stumble upon the right answer for the wrong reasons. If Andromeda is in the first outer space level, then calculating the distance can not possibly be done based on correct calculations, unless someone figures out how to incorporate the revelatory information into the calculus. Certainly, Hubble was not doing this back in the 1920’s, when he estimated the distance to Andromeda consistent with Urantia Book teachings.

For what purpose, to what end, would the revelators be confusing us by unnecessarily providing an incorrect number? The reader captivation phrase associated with this statement is a way of emphasizing the information on a personal level. Why would they tease our imaginations with a falsehood? They are, after all, tasked with “[t]he reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.”

4) The edge of the rules

(63:7.3)  Andon and Fonta, shortly after their arrival on Jerusem, received permission from the System Sovereign to return to the first mansion world to serve with the morontia personalities who welcome the pilgrims of time from Urantia to the heavenly spheres. And they have been assigned indefinitely to this service. They sought to send greetings to Urantia in connection with these revelations, but this request was wisely denied them.

(148:3.4)  It has not been revealed for the purposes of this record, but we have been led to infer that the Master, during many of these solitary seasons in the hills, was in direct and executive association with many of his chief directors of universe affairs. Ever since about the time of his baptism this incarnated Sovereign of our universe had become increasingly and consciously active in the direction of certain phases of universe administration. And we have always held the opinion that, in some way not revealed to his immediate associates, during these weeks of decreased participation in the affairs of earth he was engaged in the direction of those high spirit intelligences who were charged with the running of a vast universe, and that the human Jesus chose to designate such activities on his part as being “about his Father’s business.”

Related Quotes

(0:0.1)  IN THE MINDS of the mortals of Urantia—that being the name of your world—there exists great confusion respecting the meaning of such terms as God, divinity, and deity. Human beings are still more confused and uncertain about the relationships of the divine personalities designated by these numerous appellations. Because of this conceptual poverty associated with so much ideational confusion, I have been directed to formulate this introductory statement in explanation of the meanings which should be attached to certain word symbols as they may be hereinafter used in those papers which the Orvonton corps of truth revealers have been authorized to translate into the English language of Urantia.

(0:0.2)  It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning.

(0:0.3)  In the hope of facilitating comprehension and of preventing confusion on the part of every mortal who may peruse these papers, we deem it wise to present in this initial statement an outline of the meanings to be attached to numerous English words which are to be employed in designation of Deity and certain associated concepts of the things, meanings, and values of universal reality.

(0:0.4)  But in order to formulate this Foreword of definitions and limitations of terminology, it is necessary to anticipate the usage of these terms in the subsequent presentations. This Foreword is not, therefore, a finished statement within itself; it is only a definitive guide designed to assist those who shall read the accompanying papers dealing with Deity and the universe of universes which have been formulated by an Orvonton commission sent to Urantia for this purpose.

(0:0.5)  Your world, Urantia, is one of many similar inhabited planets which comprise the local universe of Nebadon. This universe, together with similar creations, makes up the superuniverse of Orvonton, from whose capital, Uversa, our commission hails. Orvonton is one of the seven evolutionary superuniverses of time and space which circle the never-beginning, never-ending creation of divine perfection—the central universe of Havona. At the heart of this eternal and central universe is the stationary Isle of Paradise, the geographic center of infinity and the dwelling place of the eternal God.

(0:0.6)  The seven evolving superuniverses in association with the central and divine universe, we commonly refer to as the grand universe; these are the now organized and inhabited creations. They are all a part of the master universe, which also embraces the uninhabited but mobilizing universes of outer space.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(0:12.11)  In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses, we are to be guided by the mandate of the superuniverse rulers which directs that we shall, in all our efforts to reveal truth and co-ordinate essential knowledge, give preference to the highest existing human concepts pertaining to the subjects to be presented. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind.

(0:12.12)  Successive planetary revelations of divine truth invariably embrace the highest existing concepts of spiritual values as a part of the new and enhanced co-ordination of planetary knowledge. Accordingly, in making these presentations about God and his universe associates, we have selected as the basis of these papers more than one thousand human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings. Wherein these human concepts, assembled from the God-knowing mortals of the past and the present, are inadequate to portray the truth as we are directed to reveal it, we will unhesitatingly supplement them, for this purpose drawing upon our own superior knowledge of the reality and divinity of the Paradise Deities and their transcendent residential universe.

(0:12.13)  We are fully cognizant of the difficulties of our assignment; we recognize the impossibility of fully translating the language of the concepts of divinity and eternity into the symbols of the language of the finite concepts of the mortal mind. But we know that there dwells within the human mind a fragment of God, and that there sojourns with the human soul the Spirit of Truth; and we further know that these spirit forces conspire to enable material man to grasp the reality of spiritual values and to comprehend the philosophy of universe meanings. But even more certainly we know that these spirits of the Divine Presence are able to assist man in the spiritual appropriation of all truth contributory to the enhancement of the ever-progressing reality of personal religious experience—God-consciousness.

(31:8.2)  In the discussion of Transcendentalers we are restricted, not only by the limitations of human comprehension, but also by the terms of the mandate governing these disclosures concerning the personalities of Paradise. These beings are in no way connected with the mortal ascent to Havona. The vast host of the Paradise Transcendentalers have nothing whatever to do with the affairs of either Havona or the seven superuniverses, being concerned only with the superadministration of the affairs of the master universe.

(31:9.2)  The sixteenth proscription of the mandate authorizing these narratives says: “If deemed wise, the existence of the Architects of the Master Universe and their associates may be disclosed, but their origin, nature, and destiny may not be fully revealed.” We may, however, inform you that these Master Architects exist in seven levels of the absonite. These seven groups are classified as follows: …

(72:12.3)  This recital of the affairs of a neighboring planet is made by special permission with the intent of advancing civilization and augmenting governmental evolution on Urantia. Much more could be narrated that would no doubt interest and intrigue Urantians, but this disclosure covers the limits of our permissive mandate.

See Paper 101: Real Nature of Religion, Section 4: Limitations of Revelation.
(101:4.1) Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.
(101:4.2) Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.
(101:4.3) 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.
(101:4.4) 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.
(101:4.5) Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:
(101:4.6) 1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.
(101:4.7) 2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.
(101:4.8) 3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.
(101:4.9) 4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.
(101:4.10) 5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.

(121:0.1)  ACTING under the supervision of a commission of twelve members of the United Brotherhood of Urantia Midwayers, conjointly sponsored by the presiding head of our order and the Melchizedek of record, I am the secondary midwayer of onetime attachment to the Apostle Andrew, and I am authorized to place on record the narrative of the life transactions of Jesus of Nazareth as they were observed by my order of earth creatures, and as they were subsequently partially recorded by the human subject of my temporal guardianship. Knowing how his Master so scrupulously avoided leaving written records behind him, Andrew steadfastly refused to multiply copies of his written narrative. A similar attitude on the part of the other apostles of Jesus greatly delayed the writing of the Gospels.

Paper 121: The Times Of Michael’s Bestowal, Section 8: Previous Written Records
(121:8.1)  As far as possible, consistent with our mandate, we have endeavored to utilize and to some extent co-ordinate the existing records having to do with the life of Jesus on Urantia. Although we have enjoyed access to the lost record of the Apostle Andrew and have benefited from the collaboration of a vast host of celestial beings who were on earth during the times of Michael’s bestowal (notably his now Personalized Adjuster), it has been our purpose also to make use of the so-called Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

(121:8.2)  These New Testament records had their origin in the following circumstances:

(121:8.3)  1. The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew), briefest, and most simple record of Jesus’ life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter’s death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter’s memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew’s and Matthew’s notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.

(121:8.4)  2. The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master’s life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus’ life that much which he did was that “it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.

(121:8.5)  The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew’s personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthew was written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.

(121:8.6)  Matthew’s original record was edited and added to in A.D. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in A.D. 416.

(121:8.7)  Isador escaped from Jerusalem in A.D. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew’s notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark’s narrative.

(121:8.8)  3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master’s life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the “grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as “the friend of publicans and sinners.” He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul’s death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the “Acts of the Apostles.”

(121:8.9)  As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus’ life as Paul had related it to him. Luke’s Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus’ life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark’s Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador’s narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew.

(121:8.10)  4. The Gospel of John. The Gospel according to John relates much of Jesus’ work in Judea and around Jerusalem which is not contained in the other records. This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several times been edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year A.D. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Greek Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as “First John” was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.

(121:8.11)  All these writers presented honest pictures of Jesus as they saw, remembered, or had learned of him, and as their concepts of these distant events were affected by their subsequent espousal of Paul’s theology of Christianity. And these records, imperfect as they are, have been sufficient to change the course of the history of Urantia for almost two thousand years.

(121:8.12)  [Acknowledgment: In carrying out my commission to restate the teachings and retell the doings of Jesus of Nazareth, I have drawn freely upon all sources of record and planetary information. My ruling motive has been to prepare a record which will not only be enlightening to the generation of men now living, but which may also be helpful to all future generations. From the vast store of information made available to me, I have chosen that which is best suited to the accomplishment of this purpose. As far as possible I have derived my information from purely human sources. Only when such sources failed, have I resorted to those records which are superhuman. When ideas and concepts of Jesus’ life and teachings have been acceptably expressed by a human mind, I invariably gave preference to such apparently human thought patterns. Although I have sought to adjust the verbal expression the better to conform to our concept of the real meaning and the true import of the Master’s life and teachings, as far as possible, I have adhered to the actual human concept and thought pattern in all my narratives. I well know that those concepts which have had origin in the human mind will prove more acceptable and helpful to all other human minds. When unable to find the necessary concepts in the human records or in human expressions, I have next resorted to the memory resources of my own order of earth creatures, the midwayers. And when that secondary source of information proved inadequate, I have unhesitatingly resorted to the superplanetary sources of information.

(121:8.13)  The memoranda which I have collected, and from which I have prepared this narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus—aside from the memory of the record of the Apostle Andrew—embrace thought gems and superior concepts of Jesus’ teachings assembled from more than two thousand human beings who have lived on earth from the days of Jesus down to the time of the inditing of these revelations, more correctly restatements. The revelatory permission has been utilized only when the human record and human concepts failed to supply an adequate thought pattern. My revelatory commission forbade me to resort to extrahuman sources of either information or expression until such a time as I could testify that I had failed in my efforts to find the required conceptual expression in purely human sources.

(121:8.14) While I, with the collaboration of my eleven associate fellow midwayers and under the supervision of the Melchizedek of record, have portrayed this narrative in accordance with my concept of its effective arrangement and in response to my choice of immediate expression, nevertheless, the majority of the ideas and even some of the effective expressions which I have thus utilized had their origin in the minds of the men of many races who have lived on earth during the intervening generations, right on down to those who are still alive at the time of this undertaking. In many ways I have served more as a collector and editor than as an original narrator. I have unhesitatingly appropriated those ideas and concepts, preferably human, which would enable me to create the most effective portraiture of Jesus’ life, and which would qualify me to restate his matchless teachings in the most strikingly helpful and universally uplifting phraseology. In behalf of the Brotherhood of the United Midwayers of Urantia, I most gratefully acknowledge our indebtedness to all sources of record and concept which have been hereinafter utilized in the further elaboration of our restatement of Jesus’ life on earth.]

(196:3.35)  And God-consciousness is equivalent to the integration of the self with the universe, and on its highest levels of spiritual reality. Only the spirit content of any value is imperishable. Even that which is true, beautiful, and good may not perish in human experience. If man does not choose to survive, then does the surviving Adjuster conserve those realities born of love and nurtured in service. And all these things are a part of the Universal Father. The Father is living love, and this life of the Father is in his Sons. And the spirit of the Father is in his Sons’ sons—mortal men. When all is said and done, the Father idea is still the highest human concept of God.