[Turtle]

Mmmmm...while the lion's away the lambies will play.

Originally Posted by ughaibu

I think Turtle posted a link to an online version.

'Tis true. Costs nothing to do it again: The Urantia Papers

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

Time will tell whether this is just another wackjob story bought by a segment of conspiracy theorists.

Or not; but then the subject of your predicate is unclear in that sentence. What is clear in this thread is the premise that the Urantia Book is a work of fiction, and whether you believe that or not is immaterial to the aim of proposing who wrote it. If you haven't already read this entire thread, please do. If you want to discuss some other aspect of the book other than its human authors, feel free to start another thread in some appropriate section.

[rockytriton]

I just read over a bit of the book's forward and one thing I can tell you almost for certain, it's most likely written by freemasons, it really has a lot of masonic phrases in it. No, I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists, I'm a freemason myself.

[OutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Mmmmm...while the lion's away the lambies will play.



'Tis true. Costs nothing to do it again: The Urantia Papers



Or not; but then the subject of your predicate is unclear in that sentence. What is clear in this thread is the premise that the Urantia Book is a work of fiction, and whether you believe that or not is immaterial to the aim of proposing who wrote it. If you haven't already read this entire thread, please do. If you want to discuss some other aspect of the book other than its human authors, feel free to start another thread in some appropriate section.

Sorry, the conversation did indeed veer from that original narrow scope. In my defense, I didn't really recognize the seeming constraint of scope until recently (perhaps having to do with being a newcomer to hypography).

I did, in fact, speak directly to the OP question, though I couldn't blame you if you missed where I did that amongst all of the other debate. And I did read the entire thread prior to posting initially...

Ok, so to rehash, and in the light of my being very schooled at this point on both the text itself as well as the history/origins of TUB: There are two men in my view who could have hoaxed it. Or at least, it could not have been hoaxed by any other or by any group without the direct participation and knowledge of one or both of the following men.

1.) William Sadler
2.) Wilfred Kellogg

If anyone is truly interested in evaluating their respective life histories, potentials of motive, etc. then there is the information to start with...

For those who have continued interest in more information on the history/origins I'm glad to carry on further conversation in another thread if someone starts it.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

...Ok, so to rehash, and in the light of my being very schooled at this point on both the text itself as well as the history/origins of TUB: There are two men in my view who could have hoaxed it. Or at least, it could not have been hoaxed by any other or by any group without the direct participation and knowledge of one or both of the following men.

1.) William Sadler
2.) Wilfred Kellogg

Now we're cookin'! Thanks for drifting back. I suggest the following edit of the bolded phrase: '...without the direct participation and/or knowledge...' This allows then that these fellas participated, but that they mave have done so unwittingly. Do you think they had motive, and if so what?

Originally Posted by RockofTriton

I just read over a bit of the book's forward and one thing I can tell you almost for certain, it's most likely written by freemasons, it really has a lot of masonic phrases in it. No, I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists, I'm a freemason myself.

I haven't heard that before! Please elaborate. What phrases in particular? How are they applied in Masonic practice? Do you know if Sadler or Kellogg were Masons? Feeeeed me!

Originally Posted by Can'tgetinthebox

For those who have continued interest in more information on the history/origins I'm glad to carry on further conversation in another thread if someone starts it.

By all means you be the one. You have enough posts to start a thread, and if you start it you can craft the title/topic to reflect just the nuance you wish to discuss as long as it isn't proselytization.

[OutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Now we're cookin'! Thanks for drifting back. I suggest the following edit of the bolded phrase: '...without the direct participation and/or knowledge...' This allows then that these fellas participated, but that they mave have done so unwittingly. Do you think they had motive, and if so what?

You know, ironically, I truly originally wrote and/or then went back and changed it after further consideration before posting. I don't believe TUB could have been hoaxed without the knowledge of one of them. And having knowledge would directly represent participation. So, no, it's not possible in my view, knowing what I do of history (and I've read much of it - though I'm continuing to do so), that both of them would have been unwitting of the hoax.

Originally Posted by Turtle

I haven't heard that before! Please elaborate. What phrases in particular? How are they applied in Masonic practice? Do you know if Sadler or Kellogg were Masons? Feeeeed me!

Neither were Freemasons that I am aware of, though I continue to learn more about Kellogg's history (having focused on Sadler to this point since he was really the central figure in the Urantia Papers). Historically, Sadler was extremely close to Kellogg's brother (J.H. Kellogg) for many years before they had a falling out. Actually both Sadler and Wilfred Kellogg had a falling out (separately, and for different reasons) with J.H. Kellogg.

Sadler was not a Freemason and, again, I've seen no history to suggest that Kellogg was. Sadler was for many years a hardcore believer (and major player, though not so much in a spiritual sense as a medical sense in administering care to the public) in the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) movement. He later became disillusioned with all of the infighting in the SDA and [some say] the visions of E.G. White (who he greatly respected). He was a man of great faith, but he was in it more so, apparently, for the commitment to provide medical care to the public masses as opposed to the overwhelming desire to spread the doctrine. But, by all accounts that I've been able to locate, he was an umambiguously honest, decent, and righteous individual who *seemingly* paid great attention to helping his fellow man.

The two biggest influences on him in life clearly appear to have been E.G. White (the spiritual leader and co-founder of the SDAs) and J.H Kellogg (the cereal baron whose brother, Wilfred, disagreed with him as to the direction he was taking the newly created cereal empire).

Strangely, there are certain things in the Urantia Book that would make an SDA puke (and in all likelihood, I suspect, thus constitute absolute heresy and probable divine damnation from the perspective of believing SDAs). How Sadler would ever have turned the corner from the SDA beliefs, along with the other history I know about him, to writing some of the things that are in the Urantia Book is something that's difficult to reconcile (at least, for me). Some things in the book do indeed jibe with certain of his historical views, but others seem to disagree wholesale...

There are several good historical evaluations of Sadler available online. The one I'm reading right now is by Ernest Moyer ('The Birth of a Divine Revelation'). Another one that outright debunks TUB is by Martin Gardner ('The Great Cult Mystery'), and there is an additional one by Larry Mullins.

Moyer's is the best I've found so far in terms of detailing and substantiating Sadler's personal history with the SDA movement (which I find to be amongst the most compelling areas of interest for evaluating whether he might have decided to hoax the book).

Originally Posted by Turtle

By all means you be the one. You have enough posts to start a thread, and if you start it you can craft the title/topic to reflect just the nuance you wish to discuss as long as it isn't proselytization.

I wouldn't proselytize (believe or not, after reading this thread)... Though, debating and sharing viewpoints is never an issue for me.

No sense starting another unless others are genuinely interested...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

You know, ironically, I truly originally wrote and/or then went back and changed it after further consideration before posting. I don't believe TUB could have been hoaxed without the knowledge of one of them. And having knowledge would directly represent participation. So, no, it's not possible in my view, knowing what I do of history (and I've read much of it - though I'm continuing to do so), that both of them would have been unwitting of the hoax.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

...Strangely, there are certain things in the Urantia Book that would make an SDA puke (and in all likelihood, I suspect, thus constitute absolute heresy and probable divine damnation from the perspective of believing SDAs). How Sadler would ever have turned the corner from the SDA beliefs, along with the other history I know about him, to writing some of the things that are in the Urantia Book is something that's difficult to reconcile (at least, for me). Some things in the book do indeed jibe with certain of his historical views, but others seem to disagree wholesale...

I would simply suggest this apparent divisiveness is no more than a writer's device for obfuscation of the author's identity. There is a lot in the book that I find good plot in a fiction, but make me puke when otherwise classified.

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

No sense starting another unless others are genuinely interested...

The way I approach it is to start a thread and then get a feel for the interest based on responses.

[Turtle]

I went ahead on my own creating a new thread; let's hope I got it right enough. http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#post209212

[OutsideTheBox]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Not sure whether to take this as sarcasm or otherwise humor. You've discerned by this point, no doubt, that it's not my view the Urantia Book was borne of deceipt. I, personally, am not a deceiver and don't engage in deceipt. Of that I can assure you...

Originally Posted by Turtle

I would simply suggest this apparent divisiveness is no more than a writer's device for obfuscation of the author's identity. There is a lot in the book that I find good plot in a fiction, but make me puke when otherwise classified.

Such a suggestion is worthy of consideration. Alternatively, however, it is quite presumptuous to determine so out of hand (presenting the appearance of divisiveness for purpose of obfuscating authorship) without first evaluating Sadler's history. The man's history, to me, appears to not have a trace that I can see which meets the threshold for ascribing to him motive for perpetration of such a hoax. I would suggest that you should have written '... could be no more...' instead of '...is no more...' if you have an open mind prior to evaluating the history objectively. There can be no doubt of one thing - if Sadler hoaxed TUB he would in the final analysis have been sealing his own fate as a man who lived an incredibly large lie for many many decades. His history prior to becoming involved in the Urantia Papers (antecedent to the book) is entirely at odds with someone who would perpetrate such fraud on his fellow man, and perhaps as importantly, would take the sacriligious actions in affront to God that the hoaxing author of the Urantia Book did.

Presuming it a hoax that Sadler participated in would mandate, commensurately, the following conclusion (in my view): That Sadler, who was an undeniably religious man, who unabashedly believed in the Bible (through the prism of a SDA early in his life), and provided great respect to religious leaders he perceived as genuinely spiritually insightful suddenly decided that he would make all kinds of incredibly detailed garbage to mislead the masses to believe in God using information diametrically opposed (in some cases) to the Bible. But, why would he spend the majority of his life making up such trash and living the lie to trick the masses to believe if he had himself lost faith in and disavowed God? Alternatively, if he still believed in God, then surely his boldfaced lies of immense scope and heresy, along with the massive deceipt foisted upon his human brethren, would surely and immediately doom him to hell (or similar place)...

Never mind my faith in God for a moment. Men do a lot of disgraceful stuff in this lifetime to be sure, however, I have also faith in man (as well) in that I believe there are indeed righteous people on this Earth who have no need/desire to engage in deceipt toward their fellows. Because I must give Sadler the presumptive benefit of being one of those good guys, I must also look into his history for myself to evaluate his life, character, and potential motive before ascribing him such heinous work...

I've already mentioned that hoaxing it without Sadler's knowledge was likely impossible.

Obviously, everyone needs to come to their own conclusion. I fail to understand how someone who adamantly debunks TUB as a fraud can ascribe such heinous motives to Sadler without having evaluated his personal history.

Originally Posted by Turtle

The way I approach it is to start a thread and then get a feel for the interest based on responses.

I'll have a look...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by OutsideTheBox

Not sure whether to take this as sarcasm or otherwise humor.

A bit of both I'm afraid, but not directed at you, rather the book's writers. Sooooo hard to get such an enormous tome of this calibre to hang together logically and factually, and as we know, I have concluded it doesn't.

Originally Posted by OTB

You've discerned by this point, no doubt, that it's not my view the Urantia Book was borne of deceipt. I, personally, am not a deceiver and don't engage in deceipt. Of that I can assure you...

I find you sincere and good humored so far.

Originally Posted by OTB

Such a suggestion is worthy of consideration. Alternatively, however, it is quite presumptuous to determine so out of hand (presenting the appearance of divisiveness for purpose of obfuscating authorship) without first evaluating Sadler's history. The man's history, to me, appears to not have a trace that I can see which meets the threshold for ascribing to him motive for perpetration of such a hoax. I would suggest that you should have written '... could be no more...' instead of '...is no more...' if you have an open mind prior to evaluating the history objectively. There can be no doubt of one thing - if Sadler hoaxed TUB he would in the final analysis have been sealing his own fate as a man who lived an incredibly large lie for many many decades. His history prior to becoming involved in the Urantia Papers (antecedent to the book) is entirely at odds with someone who would perpetrate such fraud on his fellow man, and perhaps as importantly, would take the sacriligious actions in affront to God that the hoaxing author of the Urantia Book did.

I accept the edit. Everyone's fate is sealed, no matter what.

Originally Posted by OTB

Obviously, everyone needs to come to their own conclusion. I fail to understand how someone who adamantly debunks TUB as a fraud can ascribe such heinous motives to Sadler without having evaluated his personal history.

I'll have a look...

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.

[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!.