Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery

Rating:
Summary: An Angry Man with an Angry Agenda
Review: Even though Gardner's book is fairly formidable (445 pages; 1.7 pounds), do yourself a favor and read it before you buy and read the Urantia Book (2,097 pages; 4.3 pounds, per Gardner). By doing so, you will hopefully save the cost of buying, the time spent reading, and, most importantly, avoid a possible commitment to the Urantia Book.
I first ran across the Urantia Book (UB) in 1973, bought it and spent months of careful reading before finishing it in early 1974. At that time I got rid of the UB because I felt that, although unconventional, it was essentially Christian and capable of only producing yet another Christian sect, and was therefore limited in perspective and usefulness. The racial and religious prejudices, spread throughout the book but concentrated especially in the Jesus papers, were obvious, and likely not the product of those with a comprehensive view of the world, as assumed by the UB's purported cosmic authors. Because of the UB's complexity and obviously Christian focus, I concluded at the time that the source must be, say, a very cynical Christian mathematician.
Although I have not paid much attention to the UB for the last 30 years, I was very interested to recently run across Gardner's book in the library and to find that my initial reaction to the UB had some elements of truth. From Gardner's book, I learned that the authors of the UB, or at least its editors/compilers, were from a strong Christian (Seventh Day Adventist) background. Also, to date, approximately 50% of the UB has been shown to be directly copied or summarized from a variety of early 20th century religious, scientific, sociological, and historical publications that were available to UB authors prior to its publication in 1955. Of course this fact runs counter to the extraterrestrial origin claimed by the UB's naturally very secretive human sources. Whether their motivation was to create a special aura around the book, or to shield themselves from public accountability, in the short term it is clear that the miraculous origin gathered more attention than would have the open acknowledgement of its copyrighted human origin. Who would have given any attention to this eclectic mishmash if the sources had been duly cited? The fact that much of the material was illegally plagiarized is not in doubt, and is clearly presented by Gardner. This is not just his opinion, as stated by some UB devotees, because Gardner's book contains multiple instances of, and references to, identical passages copied word for word from identified, copyrighted sources into the UB. This activity has been shown, to date, to account for approximately half the UB; perhaps the remaining 50% of the UB is also plagiarized, or portions of it may have been authored by its editors/compilers. The complexity of some of the UB can be attributed in part to the complexity of some of its sources; at least one of the sources noted was a physics publication by an acknowledged expert of the day. Some of the testable scientific assertions presented in the UB were generally accepted in the early 1900's, but have since been discredited. However, to non-scientists unaware of the plagiarized sources, the complexity of the UB can be dazzling. This is understandable, because even though the accuracy of science increases over time, the complexity of any particular scientific theory is more likely a function of the individual author than its era.
If one wishes to be dazzled by complexity, why not simply pick up any college textbook of higher mathematics, particle physics, or astronomy and attempt to read that? If one doesn't understand it, or is amazed, confused, or dazzled by it, does that make the source extraterrestrial? No, because the authors don't claim such a source. Instead, they rely on their own effort, expertise, and availability as well as the honesty and testability of their work. The UB authors eliminate these sources of true credibility, and rely instead on the dazzle factor of the UB, as well as the significant credulity factor expected to be supplied by disenfranchised Christian readers, who are eager to see Jesus again at the top, even if in an unusual way.
As any potential readers of the UB have their resources, their time, and perhaps their very futures to consider, I think a skeptical attitude should definitely be taken before reading the UB. Fortunately, Gardner's book now makes the information available to apply this reasonable skepticism, and perhaps prevent some gullible individuals from being conned by undeserving charlatans.
If you have already read the UB, reading Gardner's book may help you achieve a new perspective. However, as Gardner notes in his book, in many instances this does not occur. It seems that the weaknesses of the UB, resulting from its particular human sources, tend to fit those of its devotees, resulting in a kind of symbiotic fit. To me this seems unfortunate, but not surprising. As these individuals are adults, they are obviously free to choose what they wish, and are ultimately responsible for themselves.

Rating:
Summary: Worth Reading - Even for Urantians!
Review: Given that Martin Gardner is a skeptic, and that the Urantia book is a so-called "revealed" Bible-like text which mixes Christianity, philosophy, history, and many strange, wild, and often nutty ideas, Gardner's book is primarily worth reading for the history and background of the Urantia Book and movement based upon it. Gardner's opinions are condescending and nasty at times, but one expects that from so harsh a critic of spirituality as he. I am a liberal Christian and an open-minded skeptic, not a "Urantian", yet I have read much of the Urantia Book and know many Urantians, good people all of them. While I am generally skeptical of any claims of spiritual revelation, I have found the Urantia movement peaceful and positive in nature, not worthy of being labeled "cult" and lumped in with Waco, Heaven's Gate, etc. I do not buy most of what the Urantia Book claims as reality, but that does not mean I do not respect much of what the readers stand for. I do believe Martin Gardner has done us all a service in tracking the cloudy history of the Urantia movement and how "the book" came to be, and I believe as he that the U Book is simply a creation of human minds. Educated human minds, but human minds, nonetheless. Yet that does not lessen my appreciation for the merits of the U Book, it's devoted readers, and the message it tries to get across. I would recommend this book with very few reservations, to all Urantia readers and believers, and anyone interested in the real history of the movement. It not only enhanced my understanding of the U Book, it filled in most of the blanks on the creation of that mammoth text. To Urantians afraid of reading this book or critical of Gardner, I believe you do yourselves and your movement a disservice. I would invite you to open the windows a bit. Start with this book.

Rating:
Summary: To Correct the Record: Gardner's misquotes and distortions
Review: Half Truths (Suppressed Evidence): Any statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

I agree it is good to debunk bogus pseudo-science. At the same time, I think most people would agree that in any critique being factually accurate, fair, and honest to context is important; and therefore, when quoting, summarizing, and paraphrasing from an original source one should do so accurately, fairly, and in context to assure one does not distort the original sources meaning in any way by adding or subtracting from it.

In Did Adam and Eve Have Navels on page 42 Gardner states (my emphasis):

"On page 1352 of the Urantia Book we learn that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star, which we know it didn't, and this accounts for what the supermortals call the "beautiful legend" that grew up about the "Star.""

Later Gardner refers to the Star of Bethlehem as a legend or beautiful myth, and states on page 44:

"In my not-so-humble opinion, the story of the Star is pure myth, similar to many ancient legends about the miraculous appearance of a star to herald a great event, such as the birth of Caesar, Pythagoras, Krishna (the Hindu savior), and other famous persons and deities."

As the full quotation of the paragraph below shows, this is essentially what the paragraph in question in the Urantia Book is saying; that there was no Star of Bethlehem, it was only a myth, a legend, albeit a beautiful one, and that ancient man was "continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes."

The actual and complete paragraph in the Urantia Book states:

"These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts." (Urantia Book 1352)

Gardner's statement above implies that the Urantia Book claims "the Jupiter-Saturn encounter of May 29, 7 B.C., gave the appearance of a single star..." This is false and a distortion of the actual paragraph's meaning. The first sentence in the paragraph states clearly "These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem." Nowhere in the paragraph in question is it stated that the Jupiter-Saturn encounter gave the appearance of a single star. I searched the online version of the Urantia Book and could find no statement that the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction "gave the appearance of a single star." This appears to indicate that Gardner has misquoted the Urantia Book by adding information that was not in the original source and omitting information, the first sentence of the paragraph in question, which contradicts his own fallacious statement. Gardner then goes on to use his own false statement as a basis upon which to criticize the Urantia Book, by stating "which we know it didn't." I fail to see how this erroneous quotation, which falls short of even minimal accuracy and fairness, furthers the cause of reason or science.

In Gardner's "not-so-humble opinion" the story of the Star of Bethlehem is only a myth similar to many ancient legends about famous persons and deities. This is essentially what the Urantia Book is saying in the paragraph in question, which leads me to ask, why would Gardner overlook this and instead distort the paragraph's meaning by misquoting it and then go on to make the same point? Did he simply repeat the story of some over zealous reader without checking the facts? Whatever the reason, perhaps Gardner should exercise a little more caution by actually reading the source he is quoting, and at a minimum attempt to quote it fairly, accurately, and in context.

Rating:
Summary: Why waste your time?
Review: I suggest Mr. Gardner actually read the Urantia papers in their entirety. In my opinion, his review is fiction, sophomoric and wreaks of sour grapes.

Rating:
Summary: What's happened to Martin Gardener?
Review: Martin Gardener is, or was, the editor of that popular magazine Scientific American. His astute recommendations for scientific books (e.g. Godel, Escher, Bach) led me to rewarding reads of such books, and when I discovered he wrote THIS book, a bash on the Urantia book, I felt it deserved a read, only because I had already read the Urantia Book (no one should bother with this book otherwise; actually, no one should bother with it at all).

Luckily I found this book in the SF public library and didn't have to purchase it, although I did purchase the Urantia Book several times (I've already lost count how many times) for myself and others and would recommend anyone else do the same. I wouldn't recommend anyone waste their money on this book, however. Why not? Because Martin rambles and that's all he does, and I know he's going off on the UB, but boy, does he go on and on with his rambling. Here I was, nervously expecting this capable man to raise doubts in my mind about the Urantia book, a book I had come to wholeheartedly accept and cherish, but after reading the first few chapters, quickly skimming ahead (some chapters have nothing to do with the UB whatsoever and are summarily skipped), realizing his narrow-minded, ineffective intent, I knew and felt for certain that no one, I repeat... NO ONE can touch the Urantia Book.

If you've ever read any of Ayn Rand's major novels, you'll remember the cynical, all-knowing, scientist characters who always condescend to the populace with approbation and success, and if this were an Ayn Rand world (thank God, it's not!), Martin Gardener would have succeeded with this book. Instead, he fails. And for Martin Gardener, a man of his 'literary' stature and scientific credibility, that's not good. Of course, I don't blame him for his failure. Had you, whoever you are, written a book similar in intent, with aims to disparage the Urantia Book, you would've failed, too.

The Urantia Book stands on its own merit, on what's revealed within, not so much on who wrote it. Truth is truth, regardless of the source, and the Urantia Book is full of it. (Yes, you can be certain of the Truth when you read it.) This book, on the other hand, has no assailing truth, however it does contain some historic facts on the key starters of the UB and Gardener does a small service relaying them. Overall, however, the book is a vehicle not for fact (a scientist's bread and butter) but opinion. This book should have done the same as the Urantia book -- it should've stood on its own merit -- for it to really matter and make a difference, regardless whether it's a criticism which relies heavily, albeit narrow-mindedly, on another work. Had Gardener voiced any of these opinions in his book out loud at a cocktail party, I'm sure people standing next to him, awkwardly holding their drinks and staring at the floor, would've responded with dumb smiles and no comments.

Criticize the Urantia Book if you must, after all it is your right, but if you do, after reading the whole book, make your argument clear and lucid, not unclear and longwinded, for the Urantia Book is neither of these. If your claim is (as Martin Gardener's claim is) that the UB is the product of human minds, your dissenting human argument had better be as convincing as sounding as the statements put forth by the so-called 'human authors' of the Urantia Book. That is, write your dissenting book with the same clarity and authority (probably not possible) that the Urantia Book possesses, otherwise you have no chance at being effective. Not a newbie author and possessing (I'm assuming) an analytical, scientific mind, this shouldn't have been a problem for Martin Gardener, but upon reading the book you discover it was. His argument when all is said and done is simply not clear, not coherent, not convincing. Why should I choose it then over the Urantia book, which is clear, which is coherent, and which is convincing? IF (a big IF) I had wanted to disbelieve the Urantia Book, I certainly couldn't have relied on this book with any confidence. Gardener should've saved his energy and words for books in his field. And true, while the Urantia Book does cover a bit of science, that's clearly not its focus. Not to mention that the science of today isn't the science of fifty years ago (when the UB was written), and aspects of the science today may seem laughable fifty years from now. It's the spirituality, God, and Jesus which is the focus of the UB, which is not laughable today (except by atheists), tomorrow, or yesterday, long before the UB was celestially authored.

Rating:
Summary: An eye opening expose' of gross religous manipulations
Review: Martin Gardner has clearly done extensive and scholarlyresearch in preparing this book. It was fairly easy to read and quiteto the point. I found it very interesting that the Urantia book found it's origin with a group of dis-gruntled ex Seventh Day Adventists. As Martin Gardner points out so clearly E.G. White who founded the S.D.A. church is well known for her blatant plagerisms and her hypocrisy. What a foundation to build another elaborate religious manipulation upon. And this is just what Dr. William Sadler did, he master minded the creation of a compromised Bible filled with outright lies and fiction mixed with stolen truths for those who are unwilling to accept the God of the Holy Bible.

I believe that Martin Gardner showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Urantia book and the entire Urantia movement which has followed is built on a foundation of shifting sand. The Urantia book is quite clearly not the product of pure divine inspiriation but rather a clever and intricate web of fantasy and deception mixed with faulty S.D.A. doctrines and plagerized truths. I would highly recommend this book especially to those who have believed the lie that the Urantia book was inspired by 'higher beings'. No The Urantia book was inspired and compiled by dishonest, arrogant and power hungry indivduals.

Rating:
Summary: An Angry Man with an Angry Agenda
Review: Martin Gardner ia an angry man with an angry agenda.

Interestingly,The Urantia Book is a beautiful book based on unlifting hope for all of God's children.

Rating:
Summary: Is this the best author for the job?
Review: Mr. Gardner is not correct in most of his critiques commensing with Urantia being a 'cult'. This is simply untrue. No one should comment, much more write a book critiquing,on a subject they really know nada about. Unfortunately, the only message coming across in Mr. Gardner's work is ignorance. This, too, is evidenced by his use of name calling, put downs, and overall disparaging remarks in order to hide from the "facts" he knows nothing of. This book has no authentic biblical scholarship. No history, philosophy, socio-cultural, textural, or literary scholarship to do a truly INFORMED analysis. I'll bet Mr. G doesn't recognize experts in the field such as Bultman, Otto, Borg, Crossan, Berger, Bellah, and so on. I have studied religion, sociology, culture, theology, spiritually, and the bible for over 30 yrs. I have learned from and by the very best in the aforementioned disciplines, in the most prestigious of universities and schools--ones that usually do not admit women. I still do not consider myself so learned in these areas, particularly, of biblical scripture, and Jesus, to become so haughty, so arrogant as to be able to proclaim the Truth for anyone. Religious maturity reveals itself in allowing others to have their beliefs and philosophies. There are many many Christians, especially Fundamentalist who take the Bible literally ignoring history, context and so forth that misconceptions and outright lies prevail. Jesus NEVER claimed to be the 'Son of God' or the Messiah for that matter. So, Urantia is correct. The "Truth" is hard to take esp. when one has been programed to accept untruths for many years. All things considered, I have to say in honesty, that the Urantia book is the closest and congruently accurate work--it address all levels and all aspects which most written works do not do. Any religion without cosmology is dead! Jesus spoke often about cosmology. I would advise anyone NOT to take Mr. Gardner's work nor critique seriously at all. Do your own research, never rely on anyone else's OPINIONS. Think! Rev. Marian J. Mateu, M.Div.

Rating:
Summary: Learn to Hate God
Review: Reading this book will make the indwelling spirit of God very distressed. But the rant and rave author gives a perfect lesson on how a person sounds when losing an augument in a debate. The book is mostly hate talk and insults. He could have distilled the main concept he presents to 30 pages of science. The Urantia Book mentions how they would treat science and anyone who gave it any thought would see this offering has not a leg to stand on. Spare God the trouble and do not waste your time or money on this so called refutation.

Rating:
Summary: An axe to grind...
Review: This book is an example of someone taking a belief and working very hard to mold reality around it. Some of his arguments are circular, depending only on themselves for support. Others are just stretched beyond reason.

One that amuses me is the assertion that Dr. Sadler must have written The Urantia Book because he uses many of the words in his own books that are unique in all literature to The Urantia Book. Well, of course he does; some of the words are just wonderful. I would too. There are also many other writers using those words now. Just because Dr. Sadler was a prolific writer who happened to be one of the first people with access to words like that, in no way logically implies that he had a hand in writing the Urantia book.

Gardner's history of The Urantia Book seems to be based primarily on speculative assumptions about Dr. Sadler's personal relationships with friends who were Seventh-Day Adventists. I found very little factual evidence, such as statements of record or personal interviews of the people involved, as I have in many other historical works relating to the origin of The Urantia Book.

Regardless of whether there is truth in Gardner's statements or in those of The Urantia Book, Gardner obviously sacrifices his objective respectability and clear reasoning for the underlying motive of persuading people not to honestly consider the possibility of truth in the Urantia book.

In my opinion, his motives are fear-based as are many of our human reactions to new things in our lives. My heart and prayers go out to the Gardner in all of us that we might have the courage and faith to allow our beliefs to be challenged. Until we one day stand in the very presence of the Father, the whole divine family -- including our Creator Father -- will be continually working to challenge our beliefs that we might grow into who we were meant to be. Thank you God, that we don't have to be like we are for all eternity!

In the end, does it really matter who wrote the Urantia Book? I will always be grateful for anything that helps us awaken to the magnificent presence of God in our lives -- no matter where it comes from. In truth, The Urantia Book has led thousands of seeking and grateful souls to the simple truth that Jesus brought to our world: If we exercise the faith to personally recognize our spiritual Father, we can accept the gift of sonship and know that we are all family. And when this light dawns on our awakening souls, all of the dogma, doctrine, and division just blessedly fade in the place of the growing desire to love and serve each other as Jesus loved and served us. What a joy it becomes, the adventure of living close to this infinitely beautiful Lover of our souls! Of course we want to expand and enhand the spiritual brotherhood; we just naturally want to love and serve each other as Jesus loved and served us. And pretty soon, the experience of complete surrender in breathless adoration and worship of the amazing One who made all of this possible is the best there is. :)