[OutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I find you sincere and good humored so far.

Ditto.

And I respect the position of non-belief. I was there once myself, for a looooong period, and can associate...

Originally Posted by Turtle

In a title, Milgram's Obedience to Authority supports the ascription to everyone of the capacity for heinous acts in spite of personal history and in response to a perceived authority. Let's not forget Abraham and his boy.

Roger that look.

Indeed this capacity is true, and noted. I've seen it far too often in life firsthand. Benefit of the doubt requires me to investigate, but not believe without first evaluating...

[OutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Musing away on the historical circumstances of the world in general and Chicago in specific before, during, and after the creation of the papers and book and looking for motive, I had this little epiphany. I love it when that happens.

What might have spurred the attempt to justify the modern scientific age with religion, the turtle asked. Why the Columbian Exposition of 1893 of course. All the latest and greatest from the 4 corners of the world gathered for everyone's perusal in the windy city. Voila! What a noble task fit for angels & wizzards. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!.

Reasonable assertion. But, this really doesn't fit with Sadler's history since he was a relatively hardcore SDA through at least 1905 or so. And then he didn't entirely leave the SDA movement until sometime between 1910 and 1913 sometime.

Reading his letters from the early 1900s seem to give a good look into what the man was made of, at least at that time...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

Reasonable assertion. But, this really doesn't fit with Sadler's history since he was a relatively hardcore SDA through at least 1905 or so. And then he didn't entirely leave the SDA movement until sometime between 1910 and 1913 sometime.

Reading his letters from the early 1900s seem to give a good look into what the man was made of, at least at that time...

What does he say about his attendance at the Exposition? Or maybe more importantly, not say.

[OutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by Turtle

What does he say about his attendance at the Exposition? Or maybe more importantly, not say.

Sadler was 18 in 1893. I've seen no reference to him having attended the exposition (that doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere). He claimed to not have encountered the sleeping subject until 1908 (though other accounts put this time frame as perhaps closer to 1905 or 1906).

In any event, it's clear from his letters that he was absolutely faithful in his following of SDA spiritual leader E.G. White until the early 1900s (when he began to have doubts). Until the time of those doubts arising, one can see from his letters (many of which are chronicled, and some of which are reproduced entirely in Ernest Moyer's 'Birth of a Divine Revelation') that he believed unquestioningly in the 'testimonies' or 'visions' of Ellen White.

It's hard to argue that Sadler had decided to embark upon a Urantia Papers hoax prior to at least the time when he first expressed doubt in the 'testimonies' of White. If you take a look at his letters I suspect you'll agree...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

Sadler was 18 in 1893. I've seen no reference to him having attended the exposition (that doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere). He claimed to not have encountered the sleeping subject until 1908 (though other accounts put this time frame as perhaps closer to 1905 or 1906).

In any event, it's clear from his letters that he was absolutely faithful in his following of SDA spiritual leader E.G. White until the early 1900s (when he began to have doubts). Until the time of those doubts arising, one can see from his letters (many of which are chronicled, and some of which are reproduced entirely in Ernest Moyer's 'Birth of a Divine Revelation') that he believed unquestioningly in the 'testimonies' or 'visions' of Ellen White.

It's hard to argue that Sadler had decided to embark upon a Urantia Papers hoax prior to at least the time when he first expressed doubt in the 'testimonies' of White. If you take a look at his letters I suspect you'll agree...

I think it is a stretch to assume when a doubt began in his mind, based solely on when he announced or otherwise communicated that doubt.

Whether there is documentation of his attendance at the Exposition at age 18 (and remembering he married Miss Kellogg at 22), I would be stunned if a man of his interests and enthusiam could have been kept away. Wiki gives this short list of famous attendees:

Originally Posted by wiki

Some famous visitors to the fair included Thomas Edison, Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, Scott Joplin, Annie Oakley, Eadweard Muybridge, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Frederick Douglass, Henry Blake Fuller, J.P. Morgan, Henry Adams, Andrew Carnegie, W.D. Howells, Hamlin Garland, Swami Vivekananda, Helen Keller, Octave Chanute, John J. Montgomery, Nikola Tesla, and President Grover Cleveland.

Swami? >> Swami Vivekananda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[OutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I think it is a stretch to assume when a doubt began in his mind, based solely on when he announced or otherwise communicated that doubt.

I think it's a stretch to ascribe him doubt (or any other attitude) without first reading the actual letters that were penned of his hand. If you haven't done this yet then I'm not quite sure how valid any of this dicussion is. It's ok if you don't care to research further (obviously). But, it really would be reasonable, if you do care to debate further, to read what the man was actually engaged in during the applicable years. Even if you don't believe a word of what other historians write about him, if you don't read the letters he wrote and understand them in the context of the ones he got back then I'm not sure what purpose it serves to continue suggestion and speculation. Without the use of the insight available (objective insight, to be sure, in the case of his letters) then what's the purpose of debating? I take the letters for what they are worth, and I think they're worth a great deal. Sadler was a very open man who was unabashedly honest (it would appear). They give significant insight into his character, assuming you don't think he was already faking when he wrote them...

Originally Posted by Turtle

Whether there is documentation of his attendance at the Exposition at age 18 (and remembering he married Miss Kellogg at 22), I would be stunned if a man of his interests and enthusiam could have been kept away. Wiki gives this short list of famous attendees:

Swami? >> Swami Vivekananda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My understanding is he was in Battle Creek at this time. Again, I don't know if he attended. Not that I'm sure it would have mattered considering what transpired in his life over the following two decades...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

My understanding is he was in Battle Creek at this time. [of the Columbian Exposition] Again, I don't know if he attended. Not that I'm sure it would have mattered considering what transpired in his life over the following two decades...

I think what happens to most people when they're eighteen matters quite a lot in regard to what follows.

Investigating further the Exposition, this little influence arose: Parliament of the World's Religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Wiki

There have been several meetings referred to as a Parliament of the World’s Religions, most notably the World's Parliament of Religions of 1893, the first attempt to create a global dialogue of faiths.
...
The 1893 Parliament, which ran from September 11 to September 27, had marked the first formal gathering of representatives of Eastern and Western spiritual traditions. Today it is recognized as the occasion of the birth of formal interreligious dialogue worldwide.

Absent from this event were Native American religious figures, Sikhs and other Indigenous and Earth centered religionists. (It would not be until the 1993 Parliament that these religions and spiritual traditions would be represented.) The conference did include new religious movements of the time, such as Spiritualism and Christian Science. The latter was represented by its founder Mary Baker Eddy. Rev. Henry Jessup addressing the World Parliament of Religions was the first to mention the Bahá'í Faith in the United States (it had previously been known in Europe.[1]) Since then Bahá'ís have become active participants.[2]

The Buddhist preacher Anagarika Dharmapala was invited there as a representative of "Southern Buddhism" - which was the term applied at that time to the Theravada. He was a great success and by his early thirties he was already a global figure, continuing to travel and give lectures and establish viharas around the world during the next forty years.

Global dialogue of faiths? Not a bad description of the Urantia Book if one were pressed to describe it in so many words. Tell me Sadler et al weren't aware of this. Tell me the historical context doesn't matter in regard to the book. Tell me, tell me, tell me do.

[Caligastia]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I think what happens to most people when they're eighteen matters quite a lot in regard to what follows.

Investigating further the Exposition, this little influence arose: Parliament of the World's Religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Global dialogue of faiths? Not a bad description of the Urantia Book if one were pressed to describe it in so many words. Tell me Sadler et al weren't aware of this. Tell me the historical context doesn't matter in regard to the book. Tell me, tell me, tell me do.

Indeed, the UB does have a "global dialogue of faiths" feel to some parts of it, in that it promotes the idea that almost all faiths have something of value or some measure of truth within them. There is even a narration of Jesus participating in an early "gathering of religions" near Urmia. From the description, it sounds similar to the present-day "World Parliament of Religions".

More than thirty religions and religious cults were represented on the faculty of this temple of religious philosophy. These teachers were chosen, supported, and fully accredited by their respective religious groups. At this time there were about seventy-five teachers on the faculty, and they lived in cottages each accommodating about a dozen persons. Every new moon these groups were changed by the casting of lots. Intolerance, a contentious spirit, or any other disposition to interfere with the smooth running of the community would bring about the prompt and summary dismissal of the offending teacher. He would be unceremoniously dismissed, and his alternate in waiting would be immediately installed in his place.

These teachers of the various religions made a great effort to show how similar their religions were in regard to the fundamental things of this life and the next. There was but one doctrine which had to be accepted in order to gain a seat on this faculty--every teacher must represent a religion which recognized God--some sort of supreme Deity. There were five independent teachers on the faculty who did not represent any organized religion, and it was as such an independent teacher that Jesus appeared before them.

PAPER 134 - THE TRANSITION YEARS
(scroll down to "The Urmia Lectures")

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean I think the inspiration for this was gleaned by a young Sadler from the 1893 event.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Caligastia

Indeed, the UB does have a "global dialogue of faiths" feel to some parts of it, in that it promotes the idea that almost all faiths have something of value or some measure of truth within them. There is even a narration of Jesus participating in an early "gathering of religions" near Urmia. From the description, it sounds similar to the present-day "World Parliament of Religions".

PAPER 134 - THE TRANSITION YEARS
(scroll down to "The Urmia Lectures")

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean I think the inspiration for this was gleaned by a young Sadler from the 1893 event.

I was thinking the other day that a thorough search of newpaper archives in Chicago might shed some factual light on any association Sadler may have made with the Exposition as I have suggested he may. Also, whether any personal letters of his have any mention of it. Sounds like a job for someone.

I found that any positive mention of a religion ,other than Christianity, is either prefaced or quickly followed with a derogatory statement/comment of some matter or form.

I find this prefacing disclaimer in that section, a rather more human than higher-spirit stylistic device, and illustrative of my mention in the previous paragraph.

Originally Posted by Urantia

[When we, the midwayers, first prepared the summary of Jesus' teachings at Urmia, there arose a disagreement between the seraphim of the churches and the seraphim of progress as to the wisdom of including these teachings in the Urantia Revelation. Conditions of the twentieth century, prevailing in both religion and human governments, are so different from those prevailing in Jesus' day that it was indeed difficult to adapt the Master's teachings at Urmia to the problems of the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men as these world functions are existent in the twentieth century. We were never able to formulate a statement of the Master's teachings which was acceptable to both groups of these seraphim of planetary government. Finally, the Melchizedek chairman of the revelatory commission appointed a commission of three of our number to prepare our view of the Master's Urmia teachings as adapted to twentieth-century religious and political conditions on Urantia. Accordingly, we three secondary midwayers completed such an adaptation of Jesus' teachings, restating his pronouncements as we would apply them to present-day world conditions, and we now present these statements as they stand after having been edited by the Melchizedek chairman of the revelatory commission.]

PAPER 134 - THE TRANSITION YEARS

[Caligastia]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I was thinking the other day that a thorough search of newpaper archives in Chicago might shed some factual light on any association Sadler may have made with the Exposition as I have suggested he may. Also, whether any personal letters of his have any mention of it. Sounds like a job for someone.

I'm hoping OutsideTheBox might show up again, but if I remember correctly he stated that he didn't find any connection when he researched Sadler. That's not to say there isn't, of course.

I found that any positive mention of a religion ,other than Christianity, is either prefaced or quickly followed with a derogatory statement/comment of some matter or form.

Here's a paper that comments on many religions, but I can't see any of the derogatory statements you speak of:
PAPER 131 - THE WORLD'S RELIGIONS

And in my opinion, Christianity gets more criticism than most, as you can see in this paper:

PAPER 195 - AFTER PENTECOST
(Towards the end)

I find this prefacing disclaimer in that section, a rather more human than higher-spirit stylistic device, and illustrative of my mention in the previous paragraph.
PAPER 134 - THE TRANSITION YEARS

I honestly can't see why you would take that statement as being derogatory towards non-christian religion, or any religion for that matter. To me, it seems to plainly informational - regarding the problems of adapting what Jesus said to the present day.