Customer Reviews

Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

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.

Martin Gardner's book entitled URANTIA: The Great Cult Mystery is a skeptic's critique of The URANTIA Book (UB), a 2097-page compilation of several papers allegedly authored by several `divine revelators,' each one claiming to be a representative of God's vast celestial hierarchy. These `authors' were commissioned by their heavenly `supervisors' to enlighten the inhabitants of this planet (which they call Urantia) as to how mankind has been supposedly misled throughout human history by the errors of religious thinking. The primary target for which the UB `authors' claim is in need of `correction' in the arena of religion is the Bible, with all its misconceptions regarding the nature of God, who Jesus was, etc. Mr. Gardner, although not a Bible-believer himself, finds it difficult to accept the truth-claims that these alleged celestial authors present, in light of several factors. To begin with, Gardner takes exception to the many scientific errors to be discovered within the pages of the UB. He devotes two full chapters of his book to illustrate portions of the UB's vast science content which have been rendered outdated because of discoveries made since its publication in 1955. In some cases, the science content became outdated even before the UB was published, and in still others, the purported scientific `facts' were already incongruent with the science of the time, which can only be attributed as outright errors on the part of these alleged higher minds! Why would these divine revelators allow the publishing of such self-damning evidence? Gardner points out a disclaimer inserted in an attempt to `inform' the reader that the authors were given a `prime directive' by their superiors not to reveal any unearned science to us evolving mortals and to write their scientific treatises within the limits of our then-current vernacular. However, Gardner does not buy this pitch, because at the same time these intergalactic messengers are bedazzling us with their brilliance as pertains to things known, they also baffle us with a fantastic model of the universe that is beyond our wildest dreams and which is, of course, unearned science. One might be compelled to ask how the UB allegedly got into print in the first place, assuming it was commissioned by unseen heavenly beings. In probing for answers to this question, Gardner provides more compelling evidence that the UB was the brainchild not of celestials, but of mere terrestrials. The UB authors purport that its papers were presented through the thought patterns of a certain unnamed human contact whose disposition was suitable for said transferences of knowledge. By some `unrevealed' process, these revelations were transposed into a written format, from whence we got the UB after several of these `contact' sessions. The term `channeling' comes to mind, although UB adherents vehemently deny that this was the method used, preferring instead to keep both the method and the human contact a mystery for the sake of mystique. However, Gardner's skeptical nose smells a rat. He reports that a man named Wilfred C. Kellogg, patient and brother-in-law of then psychiatrist William S. Sadler III, was the `human contact' from whose subconscious the revelations began to emanate. In addition to the spiritual content of the early sections of the UB (the source of which may well have been Kellogg's channelings), Gardner cites Sadler as a major contributor to the making of the UB. Gardner provides ample evidence to substantiate his assertion. Dr. Sadler's earlier published books reveal him to be a racist and a proponent of eugenics, both concepts of which are given full endorsement by the `divine revelators.' But what tips the scale of human invention is the weight of Seventh Day Adventist influence to be found in the UB. Both Sadler and Kellogg were one-time Adventists who were expelled from the church around 1906; and henceforth began the nocturnal `contact sessions' at the good doctor's residence. The UB authors wholeheartedly endorse such 7DA doctrines as soul-sleep, the annihilation of the wicked, the denial of the existence of hell, and that Jesus Christ is (the archangel) Michael. What Gardner denotes as amazing irony is Sadler's connection with Ellen White, Adventism's seer and prophetess. Prior to his expulsion, Sadler wrote a letter to Sister White (a complete copy of which can be found in Gardner's book), wherein he began questioning her authenticity as a prophetess in light of her recently-discovered plagiaristic tendencies. One can read between the lines of Sadler's letter that he was really asking whether plagiarism was a legitimate mode of divine revelation (as though he were contemplating the same). Not coincidentally, Gardner lastly reveals and elaborates upon a long list of plagiarisms recently discovered within the pages of the UB! If the reader is endowed with even a basic ground-level knowledge of the Bible, then many particular contrasts will stand out clearly when comparing notes. As Mr. Gardner points out, the UB vehemently denies such historic Christian doctrines as the Atonement and the Virgin Birth. But even though Gardner's book provides ample and compelling evidence that the UB was written by humans, Gardner does not go far enough to expose the spiritual con from this Christian's point of view. In exchange for bestowing divinity upon the would-be believer, the UB compromises traditional Christian doctrine. These are but a few of the observations that a discerning Christian will make when comparing the UB with the Bible. The UB author(s):

1) Claim that the Old Testament represents the evolved religion of a superstitious desert clan; 2) Rewrite the four Gospels to fit their own preconceived agenda; 3) Write up a history of Jesus' years as a youth and young adult, again agenda-driven; 4) Disparage Paul as having influenced Christianity by injecting Hellenism and Paganism; 5) State that Jesus was not the Messiah, nor did He claim to be;

and the list goes on and on (but enough about my personal beef). Martin Gardner's book is a fascinating and entertaining read, if the reader can get beyond his penchant for making condescending remarks toward UB adherents.

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.

Several months ago I received a call from a young radio announcer for a Christian station who wanted information on a Christian view of UFOs and life on other planets. After a few minutes the man reluctantly confessed that his interest was based on The Urantia Book, a revelation that supposedly supplements, corrects, and updates the Bible. (Urantia is what the book calls the Earth.) The Urantia Book caused this man, despite his Christian background, to have doubts about the orthodox teachings on Jesus. What is this Urantia Book, and how could it so confuse someone with a Christian background? Why would it attract anyone's interest?

In Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery, Martin Gardner, who has made a career out of defending science and deflating paranormal claims, helps explain both the allure and the deception of The Urantia Book and the religion it has spawned. He gives us a meticulous account that traces the personalities and philosophies that account for the supposedly supernatural revelation given in the book. Gardner, who is a theist not associated with any particular religious tradition, does not provide a theological assessment that compares The Urantia Book with any normative theological system. Rather, he engages in a sustained historical and scientific investigation of the book's claims.

First appearing in 1955, The Urantia Book is a mammoth tome that credits no human author. Rather, it claims to have been assembled by extraterrestrial entities, or "Revelators," with ostentatious names such as Perfector of Wisdom, Number, Divine Counselor, and One Without Name, and channeled by one unidentified human. The 2097-page volume gives a fantastically convoluted and obscure account of cosmology, anthropology, theology, and history. Yet, in this opacity lies much of its fascination. Students of the book claim that they have received an esoteric dispensation that eludes the masses. Because of the book's sheer bulk, it supplies endless details on cosmology, theology, and anthropol­ogy not mentioned in other religious scriptures. Herein lies its putative superiority. Under the leadership of the Urantia Foundation in Chicago, the book has gone through 11 printings in the United States, with translations in Spanish and Finnish appearing in 1993. Work is being done on Russian and Dutch editions, and there are plans for other languages as well. My search of the Internet yielded several home pages dedicated to spreading the gospel according to The Urantia Book.

The relatively small number of Urantia devotees, despite their idiosyn­cratic beliefs, are not to be considered cultists in a pejorative sociological sense. Unlike other groups with similar teachings, it does not have an authoritarian structure of leadership, nor do its followers typically engage in high-pressure proselytizing. The main appeal is intellectual. Religious activities are largely based on studying The Urantia Book. Despite these qualifications, the book itself leaves much to be desired as a suitable object of religious instruction and veneration.

To attempt to fathom The Urantia Book, one must descend into a dark and foreboding labyrinth of quirky terminology, pseudoscientific pronouncements, and revisionist ideas about Jesus. In barest outline, the book informs us that God is a "Trinity of Trinities," that humans are "unfallen" beings who have a divine spark within them (called a "Thought Adjuster"), that they can become fused with God through evolutionary development, and that Jesus' death on the cross did not atone for human sin against God. To summarize, it is a kind of space age Gnosticism claiming to update orthodox Christianity.

Gardner notes that one of the book's more objectionable anthropological claims is that the black (or "indigo") race was the most inferior; although it claims that these people "have exactly the same standing before the celestial power as any other earthly race." Gardner observes that this "is exactly what southerners in the United States, including their ministers, used to say about the African American slaves." This revelation will certainly fail to endear potential converts who are African or African American.

Gardner's well-researched conclusion is that The Urantia Book lacks any supernatural credibility. Its contents can be explained on the basis of purely terrestrial authors; its scientific claims were either common knowledge at the time or plain wrong; and it contains numerous plagiarisms (even stealing from Bertrand Russell). Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery is the most exhaustive critique of the movement yet published. It will help readers to understand many patterns of deception found in many other new religious groups as well.

The old saying "don't judge a book by its cover," in the internet age becomes "don't judge a book by the comments on Amazon." Especially books dealing with controversial subjects, where the emotionally committed few (aka fans, aka fanatics) can skew the ratings of a book with their abnormally high zeal and fervor far beyond whatever the normal, unbiased reading community can compensate for.

This is a well researched book, containing a detailed account of the emergence of a concocted-scripture based, modern-day religious group (or cult). Interesting, instructive, thought provoking, and quite a unique expose, the likes of which are all too rare. The historical dearth of this kind of material isn't all that mysterious. Uninducted contemporaries of such claims of revelation, who were in the best position to write about the historical circumstances surrounding such events, used to get silenced by the faithful in much more effective and dramatic fashion. Thankfully, today's "blasphemy trials" amount to merely leaving bad feedback in online ratings databases. So future readers be advised, do not let religious fanatics tell you what to read even through this weak and pathetic mechanism.

Gardner attempts to discredit the Urantia book immediately with his title "Cult". Believe the revelations or not, Urantia is a book that wrote the book on cults and their danger. The Urantia book even warns readers not to "cultify" the book. Gardner apparently hasn't read it.

Scepticism is healthy and welcomed by this reader, and I look forward to more skeptics debunking Urantia. However, honesty about the content is necessary in order to trust the skeptic.

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. :)

As the person who turned Martin on to the UB and corresponded with him during most of its writing, it would interest most readers of UTGCM to know that Martin believes in God, prayer and faith. Is this "platonic mystic's" new book about the UB slightly prejudiced by his own pseudo-religious beliefs? In his 1983 book, The WHYS of a Philosopical Scrivener, Gardner plainly states: "It goes without saying, as a theist who accepts no Revelation, I believe we can learn nothing about life after death from such all-too-human visions..."--pg 304 WHYS. Does this include any future books he may run across? Apparently it does, whether he reads them or not.

In Garnder's book, The WHYS, where he knows no skeptic would dare tread (alas, there are too many big words), it is no surprise to me that he makes such off-the-cuff comments like "On the other hand, we cannot leave the nature of the afterlife a total blank. If we make no guesses at all, how can it satisfy those longings that impel the leap of faith?"--pg303 WHYS. Or, "Yes, we philosophical theists are a lonely, fragmented breed. We are the closet theists. We work for years alongside someone who will never suspect that we believe in God... When we pray, we pray in secret, as Jesus himself (remember? Matthew" 6:6) recommended."

Are these the comments of someone who disbelieves in many of the UB's "wild" assertions, or are they the thoughts of someone with competing beliefs who wishes to dismiss the competition without having to supply any alternatives except to say, how can we know anything about anything.

Martin wrote, "Unless we have a trustworthy revelation in which a god details the ultimate goals of human history, a theist is no wiser about them than an atheist."--pg 90 WHYS.

The UB provides a lot of those details, at least from the point of view of the many authors' material it liberally borrows (without permission or credit) from.

Martin, to his credit, did read the UB before he finished writing UTGCM. As bad as the book seems to many Urantians, he did lighten up a little before he finished it, mainly because of all the friendly Urantians who corresponded with him over the years and provided him with insights into his text as it progressed.

Martin did a great service to the UB community with this book, but if you are looking for a level of research and quality from the likes of Richard Elliott Friedman (Who Wrote the Bible), you would be better off buying Tales from the Crypt from Russ Cochran than Martin's book about the UB.

By the way, Martin's The WHYS of a Philosophical Scrivener is a ten star book, as is The Flight of Peter Fromm, and I highly recommend them both to skeptics and Urantians. He writes much better when he sticks to topics that he knows something about--like himself.

I haven't read this book yet, but I see so many of the 1-star reviews are from Urantia believers who admit they haven't read it either. I'm adding it to my reading list and will be back with a proper review which, given the reactions of the uncritical faithful and the skill of Martin Gardner, will undoubtedly be 5 stars.

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.