THE URANTIAL ARCHIVE
Consisting of 10 Parts
From December 14,1992 Through February25, 1994
?Your brother at the gameboard,
13 Apr 1993 ???leo elliott ???????????Analog facilitators
Subject: Analog facilitators
?Charlottesville, Va 04/12/93
?The UB seems to enroll people of its own accord, at least those willing to engage in the suspension of disbelief and the rigorous exercise of reading as an aesthetic as well as an informational activity. The enrollment seems to have ceased, for me, as a social process, when I enter a group in which there is no music, where the ritual singing of our beads is lost in favor of the ritual incantation of words and phrases; I say reading can be an aesthetic activity, so not to say that a “sequential reading group” cannot be a place of soul-sustenance and support, but reading ceases to mesmerize and the “spell” of the UB is lost when the reading prevents rather than enables the singing of the spirits so gathered together.
?I recall my first visit to Chicago in the fall of 73, meeting Meredith Sprunger on the way up, and having dinner with Jim Mills and going to Diversey the next day for their Sunday study group — and then feeling like I had walked into a funeral parlor, everybody sitting in rows, coats and ties, comments limited to one or perhaps one-and-one-half sentences per section, politely acknowledged, and then moving on… here was a book that had opened the universe for me, and no one seemed bent on _exploring_ it, just reading it!
?So like it or not, this TM does seem to have some “enrollment appeal”, for now. The key, as Niebuhr points out for all religious movements, is how well, if at all, the second and future generations get enrolled or not. Certainly the practices of the TM are not new by any means; and whether it be a case of the “channeling market” tapping into the “UB territory” as seems may be the case with this Sananda material, or the development of a new form of group-generated “literature of conversation” — of which our logs here may be an example — or whether the TM be an example of psychic fusion, or all or none of the above, the issue of enrollment seems one that must be faced. Users need to become more than users, for in the larger frame, it seems we are all called upon to become much more — we may be required to spend some time in operations, but the call seems to be going out for master programmers, designers, system administrators, and analysts and spirit-synthesists of all sorts, with the ability to interconnect widely varying user platforms, to the end of true planetary system integration.
13 Apr 1993 ???Matthew Rapaport ?????????????keeping things in context
Subject: keeping things in context
?Hello all. I must say straight off that David K. is doing an excellent job of expressing my views regarding the TM, the kinds of statements made about it (personal testimony vs. broad generalizations about its significance), and the appropriate attitude to take with respect to each of these in this medium of honest, and primarily intellectual, debate. I have been far to long out of high quality philosophical sparing, that interaction, sometimes heated, from which new insights and arguments arise on both sides. My edge is dulled by being out of it too long, and I don”t have a whole lot of time to spend getting back into it.
?I do remember that foundations are built and progress made in inverse proportion to the scope of the issue being debated. That is we accomplish far more in the long run by focusing carefully on small chunks of the issues at hand.
?Ron your point about caring for the individual even if you disagree with his or her viewpoint on some issue is well made. I deny that I am merely trying to “best” anybody. I am an adult. I hold views that I *know* are to some degree distorted, imperfect, and subject to refinement as my experience widens. This is all a part of being human (absolute perfection in no attribute, imperfection in all – pg 3). I don”t mind my ideas being challenged, even condemned given sensible reasons… I expect other adults, particularly UB reader/philosophers to accept this for themselves as well. Perhaps it is too much…
?David. I liked your points about the Morontia realm and the traverse we must make before becoming “real spirits”. Just a minor correction though. I would point out that we do have some contact with genuine “spiritual reality” (i.e. beyond the morontial) even now. The Adjuster is one (albeit un-conscious), the other is our perception (more refined in some) of truth, beauty, and goodness. Also note that when we do wake up in the morontia, we do immediately recognize (and I presume see) our own guardian seraphim – who are true spirits.
14 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????Post from Jim McNelly re: Sedo
Subject: Post from Jim McNelly re: Sedona msgs: “defense of debate”
?I have about twenty pages of material sent to me from the Sedona folks that I have been wondering how to respond to. The posts on this board have helped tremendously. It seems that “Gabriel” and “Sananda” read “Universe Romancing” and were so impressed as to offer a handwritten personal invitation for me to visit/join the Sedona community.
?Since I wrote UR last August, sending out a dozen copies, I have had about fifty responses. Only Dave Elders and Dave Kantor responded negatively. DE saying that he thought it “interesting” but did not agree, but wasn”t prepared to discuss what he did not like about it. DK responded a week or so back with some aside quip about “philosophical gymnastics”.
?The Sedona response asking me to join their group was perplexing. They took me to be “one of them” by my openness to the TM phenomenon. I do feel comfortable with most of the TMers I know, but I am not experiencing the type of “contact” that leads to be being a “believer” in the conventional sense. Believing or not believing seems to make little difference as to whether peoples lives are being changed for the better as a result of the phenomonon. If pressed, I can state that I hope that celestial representatives are contacting dozens of people, engaging in morontia teaching on earth.
?I meant Universe Romancing to be a means whereby U book readers would be more tolerant for not just the TMers, but for all unorthodox religions. Moreover, my favorite meditation is one of active questioning to an alter ego, and I have found this process to be soulful and insightful. I myself have gotten much out of the TM tapes and transcripts, and have no problem with their information being a different style and character to the U Book.
?But I concluded that the Sedona messages were openly hostile to the TM mission, the U Book reading community, and to civilization in general. The notion that their location is the planetary headquarters, I find egocentricity to the extreme. The charging of fees in the mega dollar consulting range sounds like divining for profit. The use of both the names Melchizedek and Sananda, who is widely circulated in the new age trance profit circles as the incarnation of Jesus, seems like an attempt to bridge their autorevelational musings to a wider audience.
?All in all, I found their request to join their group insulting, the worst of the elitist chosen people syndrome. If this is the destiny of the TM movement, then I will continue my Diogenes quest until I find real contact and spirit growth. Until this moment, my tolerance for the autorevelatory process was decidedly inclusive. It has been easy for me to dismiss obvious rantings and ravings in other “messages” as delusions, and to accept the middle of the road TM messages as a form of spiritual evolution, benign at worst, soulful growth at best.
?David Stang”s “Dr. Bronner” soap label medieval pontifications on Prodigy I have casually dismissed as brain dead random word associations with religious trappings. Earnest Moyer, for me, is dismissable as a paranoid and confused eccentric. I don”t take my own universe romances seriously or literally at all. But the Sedona messages are disturbing to me. I guess there are limits to each of our paradigms of theological tolerances. I have found my limit.
14 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Quick Note to J. McNelly
Subject: Quick Note to J. McNelly
?A fast comment while on the run…Do you get to read all the posts hereon or does someone have to forward them to you? While I did make a comment re: “philosophical gymnastics” in relation to your “Universe Romancing” paper (which deserves a more serious response) I also posted a question to you regarding your concept of the soul.
?It seems to me that your concept of the soul, as referenced in your paper as an ontological entity, is a key component of your argument. I would appreciate just a little more background on just what you imagine the soul to be — I don”t have a good conceptual understanding of the degree to which it can become a functional component of the human experience. I do know that it comes into existence as a result of the relationship between the human mind and the Thought Adjuster, but I have always considered it a developing embryonic reality destined to become the seat of personal identity in the morontial life, but devoid of any cognitive functioning in the mortal life.
?I think the book is pretty clear in stating that the morontial level of cognitive association is not available to the mortal mind (the lack of this function being compensated by the ministry of revelation in mortal life.)
?Hence my post to you asking if you can clarify your concept of the soul in such a manner as would justify your views presented in “Universe Romancing” regarding its functioning as an agent of influence on human consciousness during the mortal life.
?Looks like you”re busy riding the range on other nets — good luck!
?Gotta go…unanswered posts piling up on my hard drive….sadistic compiler nipping at my psyche….distortion waves corrupting visions of transcendent logic…codependent conditional loops destroying simple truth formulations….
14 Apr 1993 ???leo elliott ???????????Roller coasters
Subject: Roller coasters
?By way of slight correction to an earlier post, I mentioned that Mike Painter of the Indy TM group was perhaps beginning to have some doubts about the phenomena associated with their transmissions — it was not Mike, who serves as one of their first-string T/Rs, but rather his brother David, who was one of their first T/Rs.
16 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Selections from Oren transcrip
Subject: Selections from Oren transcripts
?Hello again, Logondonters….
?Here are some selections from today”s snailbag. I am posting these as I have them, with errors of grammar, usage and spelling included.
?First, from the “teacher”, Oren, to whom some specific questions were submitted for answering. The questions were: 1. Who is the chief of the Angels of Progress? 2. What is the name of the Planetary Regent? 3. How many Melchizedeks were on assignment in Russia in 1955? 4. Who was the primary Midwayer at the time the UB was published?
?”We are about to embark on a spectacular journey, and we wish for those to come along not because some of there curiosity was satisfied by answering questions such as these, but, because they have chosen to live up to their name of Agondonters in every sense. “Yes we shall see that those who need to have proof will be tested again and again by their own method of testing. For they shall not be given these answers is their true test of faith. For if they choose to test us, they will in turn be tested. “We cannot under any circumstances give credence to this method of faith, for in that we would thereby create a network of believers who come to this by ego bound methods of belief. There is so much that is imperfect on your world, yes and even this mission has some errors. Not all transmitting is pure thought from the celestial plane. “We allow you this margin of error. For that is the way of your world. We allow this to remain unchanged since it cannot cause any real damage or pain to anyone. In the end it will be straightened out, there is no real fear of mistakes since these mistakes are small and innocent. “However, on the other hand, if we were to allow testing of this sort to unbelievers, that would open up a whole new “can of worms.” This you see would then enhance the prospect of mistakes, the margin of error would get much wider, and soon there would be none who come because of their faith, but because they were given a correct answer to some esoteric knowledge known only to a few. It would then become a game, a game of wits.”
?”Now I shall present to you, your Creator Son Christ Michael.
?”Greetings my children, it is my pleasure to be here among you. I would like to thank you all for coming here this evening. We are very happy that you are all together. I would just like to say a few short words to speak to you personally this evening, to tell you that much love comes to you each and every day. That we are making great strides in our plans for your world, for our world. “There has been messages that I shall make an appearance at your event in April and at this point I would like to put this to rest. Yes I shall be among you as you know I will be there in spirit, but, I am unable to communicate to you right now whether or not I shall be in physical form. We are still arriving at a decision regarding this matter. “I would very much like to show myself to you in this way. But there are many complications attendant upon this, and we are currently working them out now. And so I would like to tell you that I will be there with you, whether or not (illegible) see me will be forth coming. My guess would be that you will be able to. I shall take leave of you now, Peace upon you my beloved children, I love you all. Shalom.”
?(Apparently back to Oren)
?”Thank you all being such attentive listeners this evening. We knew that this would get your attention for sure.
?”Q: My question is about members of the executive committee and some of the people from the fellowship are going to be our here on the same day as we will be holding our event, some of those people expressed interest in coming, do you have any thoughts on that any reservations, should we welcome them? They would like to come as observers.
?”But of course Richard, we shall always find room for kindness, and we encourage you to invite them. However there shall never be a need to convince, or coerce anyone into believing something they are not ready for. We have no problem with them attending our event.
?”Q: Is it planned that there will be other appearances planned for April 24 or is it just Machiventa who”s planning to appear.
?”At this time there are in the planning stages many appearances scheduled yes. It has been planned to have numerous appearances across your nation as well as the world. We shall institute these events on an individual basis one at a time. Since it has been many many years since a spiritual being has been made visible to mortals of your world, we would like to proceed with this policy with the least amount of difficulty put on humankind. With the least amount of stress placed on all of our brothers and sisters on earth. We do not wish to cause mass hysteria, nor do we want to put forth more than what you all are capable of handling, and our practice/policy is to go slowly starting with small groups and selected few. Eventually yes, more and more appearances shall be scheduled as far as we understand and you all have been told there are at least three scheduled for the immediate future. Quite frankly, we would like to get passed this event to gauge the reaction and experiment first, before we can give you more information. Since we understand that this shall have a profound effect on whomever is present. Does this help?
?”Q: Yes it does Oren thank you, and I might assume then that their maybe something planned for the 93 conference outside of Montreal, but perhaps its best to address that after this coming event in April.
?”Yes we would like very much to plan something for that gathering and that we have giving that much attention at this time. Again you are correct in your understanding of planning that after this in April, and of course my dear there shall be more information on that after this.
?”Q: Hello this is Sandra, I”m curious to know how a physical manifestation will affect those who attend out of disbelief or curiosity, will it be a transforming experience for them, will they be able to visualize if they don”t believe?
?”Yes this is a question that hangs very much in the minds of others also. It is difficulty for us to say at this point how mortals would react to this. You see you always give us a suprise reaction all of the time. When we expect you to react one way you don”t. It seems that we do not like to offer this materialization as proof to those who do not believe. This is not the purpose of this event. No, rather it is for the pleasure and reward for the believer and for the correcting time has come to a point where we can bring this kind of situation into being. But since we are at limit to what we can control on your planet, there will this situation present, yes, we are well aware of this. (sic) I am not sure what will happen at this point. We hope that they will also be uplifted and transformed, but we do not like to speculate or guess at how they will react. And we are unsure of exactly how this materialization is going to effect the believers. We think that their will be many stages of seeing melchizedek. He will be visible more to some than others and human thinking tends to think that if one does not believe, that they would not see. We can not say this for sure. This would be difficult to transmit through anyone of you anyway. Since we are very careful about what we do tell you in specifics about the materialization we feel that we do not want to spoil your own experience by giving too much information. So we tend to withhold much and there is always that element of the unknown, the adventure that surrounds this event. We think that it is best in this manner since many involved in this mission seem to thrive on that sort of thing. And it is best for human nature too thrive on that, for that is what keeps you stretching beyond your preceived limitations (sic). But I appreciate you bringing up this all important question and i thank you for that. but we are not able to give to much information on it. We shall see, it is a wait and see situation.
?(Machiventa is introduced)
?”Q: This is Solona and I wish to give you my peace and my love. Thank you for being here. We are looking forward to your materialization, and I just wanted to ask a quick question regarding the forms that we are seeing in our meditations. I”ve been seeing a lot of different colors, lights and I kind of think they are a sort of laser lights. They”re crystaline, they”re moving, they”re beautiful and there are shooting colors and light beams. Is this part of what I should be seeing?
?”There are no specifics to what you should be seeing. There are times you will be receiving from your Thought Adjuster these beautiful sights, these guiding loving colors. There are times you will be seeing us in colors on your black screen. You will, your soul will know what you are seeing. Will you be able to be in tuned to know? Ask your God fragment, He will make it clear who is visiting or speaking to you. I am glad that you enjoy this, it is for the edification of true truth believers. God the Father tries to make himself known to his children in many ways, Solona. many times you will be receiving words from Him, impressions from Him, joy from Him. I am happy you are here tonight Solona, is there anything else I can address for you?
?”Q: I think that”s fine for this evening. Thank you very much, Machiventa. I love you.
?”You are welcome my daughter, I love you also.
?”Q: Machiventa, could I ask you one more question? At the materialization event how long will you be materialized in our presence approximately?
?”We have prepared for a time of between 45 minutes and 2 hours of your time. This has many ramifications only if it is possible and again you mortals are the important piece to this puzzle. We are prepared, we have many things we wish to say. We wish to pray and sing among you. Praises to God the Father, we wish to show you what true worship could possible be on your planet. (sic) We are very excited about the possibilities. Be ready for the time of your life.”
?It is beyond my comprehension how so many people can be taken in by this material, or am I missing something?
16 Apr 1993 ???Byron Belitsos ?????Spiritized imagination
Subject: Spiritized imagination
?Hello brothers and (now with the addition of Sara)….sister!
?I have been busy with a variety of business problems, personal peregrinations, and religious work…including primary research on “interactive video-on-demand (VOD) technology”, concurrent with the delightful activity of finally unveiling to Oklahoma City readers the fact of our TM contacts (– the TM being a ”technology” of sorts that conforms to the same interactive and personalizable paradigm as VOD, if you will)…
?Sara, warm welcome, and thank you for your 4/8 account of the FOG experiences — another useful contribution to the ongoing documentation that will be grist for the mill for historians and journalists of the future. We are really too close to these phenomena, even after 8 or 10 years, to properly analyze them, (though of course I have well-known opinions on these phenomena). After the Teaching Mission is in full swing — I would give it another two years to show maturity and widespread acceptance — the interest in your and Dave”s experiences will rise tremendously, I predict. Your willingness to communicate about these matters is a gift to us all.
?But as for David, I am at a loss as to how to continue the dialogue — sometimes heated — which has gone on between us on the TM. At the present time, I see little wisdom in entering into an interfaith dialogue with a brother who says that my practice reminds him of “spiritual masturbation”, lacks “any point of reference or relationship to the real world”, and would refuse to share space with me in a conference or study group. Your earlier list of insults has been noted in my responses of several weeks ago. The use of the term “masturbation” in this context is emotionally abusive and hurtful to me. If such language is meant to drive TMers away from this discussion, your wish may come true; I am not interested in receiving psychic shocks on a regular basis….You also claim that I did not mount a philosophical position, but for the sake of other readers, please return to my discussion of the “four fallacies” in Kantor”s position and see if you agree with this. Can someone help officiate or mediate here?
?The Sedona material appears to be generate by disturbed individuals and my heart goes out to someone who would resort to such a desperate ploy to gain power. I would be surprised to see any more than just a few “curiosity devotees” become attracted to it….
?Concerning your call for “independent verification” of the TM claims, Matthew, what do you say to the local person who stated publicly that even if Machiventa materializes on April 24, and even if it were witnessed by 200 people, he still wouldn”t believe the claims of the TM, since Caligastia could conceivably arrange for such a demonstration? As with Jesus” miracles, some of them spectacular demonstrations staged before the very eyes of his opponents, isn”t the true issue at hand here one of faith-discernment? Spiritual truth is known and accepted in the heart. Truth is not mere logic and it is certainly not fact, and though it may encompass a logical argument and a verifiable set of facts, truth-discernment is in the end an inner spiritual experience. “Truth cannot be defined in words, only by living. Truth is always more than knowledge….truth can never become man”s possession without the exercise of faith…Faith is the inspiration of the spiritized creative imagination.” (1459)
?Here is how this issue was handled in one dialogue with a Teacher:
Q. With millions of people on this planet being deceived by authority figures daily because of being told to accept what they are being told by faith, is it unreasonable for those of us, while keeping an open mind, to desire and deserve some form of validation, especially now that we”ve been told that our planet is no longer in spiritual isolation?
?A. What validation do you seek?
?Q. I really don”t have any particular type of validation. I guess I have seen so much deception being practiced by watching television and hearing the news and things and seeing what”s going on. I want to believe the things that are transpiring at this time; I hope very much that they are true, and I”m persuaded to believe this.
?A. Why are you persuaded so?
?Q. Probably because of my desire for this to be true. I think it”s a wonderful concept.
?A. Beyond desire, why?
?Q. Well, from my own personal experience I probably believe in the existence of the Thought Adjuster, for one thing, because of an experience I had about l7 years ago. I was practicing transcendental meditation back then, and I heard this voice speak to me. I think that it was probably the Thought Adjuster, I don”t know.
?A. But you recognized the fact that the thought pattern of the voice that you heard was not that of your own?
?Q. Absolutely. This voice was very, very powerful and wise and loving, and it completely overwhelmed me.
?A. Answer this question. How is it that you know the difference between what is real and what is not?
?Q. Intuition, I guess.
?A. Beyond your intuitive perception, is there any other assessment that you use?
?A. Indeed? What about faith?
?Q. Yes, I suppose so.
?A. You realize and accept, I know, in your mind, that our Father cannot be proven. His existence can only be known through faith. I would suggest to you that in order to know what is real and what is not, you must discern first the truth of the message itself. Does it bring you closer to our Father? Does it enhance your love? Does it create a desire within you to serve your brothers and sisters? Does it bring a warm and good feeling within yourself? Does it seem true, and most importantly, does it change you from within permanently?
?Look at your brothers and sisters here this evening. Ask them when you can how their lives are changing in front of them now. You will know the reality of any spiritual truth by the nature in which one not only understands it, but lives it. This, my friend, is the only way you will actually know the living truth of what we are telling you now. My appearance would not fully convince you, for there could be artificial means of making it appear as though I am real. There is always room for doubt. As you witnessed your Creator Son being crucified after he performed the so-called miracles, I tell you your mind is such the only way you will know the reality of the existence of the Father, of Michael, of myself and of this mission or any book of supposed truth, is by the fruits that you will bear by the practice of the teachings. Does this help you?
?I look forward to a response from you on my brief dissertation and on the above excerpt.
16 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Of Eros and Agape
Subject: Of Eros and Agape
?Byron, good to see you back here on the net. Your “four fallacies” does indeed deserve a better response than that which I have given it and I will prepare such as soon as I have a little time to review your original post.
?My equating the experience of “receiving/transmitting” with “spiritual masturbation” was not meant as an insult — it was meant as an apt description of what I think is occurring. Just as in physical masturbation, one personally stimulates the physical organ while conjuring up strong sexual images in the imagination and then attempts to link the two with the ego for the sake of physical pleasure and affirmation, so the “receiving/transmitting” phenomenon appears to be the personal stimulation of the psychic organ while conjuring up images in the imagination and the attempt of the ego to link the two for the sake of spiritual pleasure and feelings of affirmation.
?In the case of masturbation, the perceived partner is a product of the imagination as distinct from an actual encounter with a real sexual partner; this is precisely how I view the TM phenomenon.
?In each case there is genuine pleasure experienced, but a person with a minimal amount of sexual experience should be able to easily recognize the qualitative difference between the self-induced and the genuine, as well as who is getting screwed by whom.
17 Apr 1993 ???leo elliott ???????????Every sperm is sacred!
Subject: Every sperm is sacred!
?Albemarle County, VA April 16, 1993
?I am hesitant to step in and offer my services as a mediator in this difference of viewpoints, but as one with considerable experience in certain of the phenomena being discussed, as well as the spiritual psychology and theology involved, I may be able to offer some perspectives which may serve to remove some of the static from the virtual airwaves here, if such there is. Although it is getting late here and little league opening day is tomorrow morning, I feel it would be a case of nocturnal remission for me to not discharge a few observations off of our recent postings.
?(If in fact this is a form of wankfest as Peter F has speculated, and if it is true as Dick Prince has suggested from the Tibetan Buddhists that what separates humans from animals is not our minds so much as our sense of humor, then I would personally have to nominate Monty Python for the Nobel Peace Prize, for I think I”m starting to see some humor in all this spouting off. For those of you who may have lived in a cave for the last two decades and need a refresher course on the 20th century, I would highly recommend a night”s renting of “The Meaning of Life” in which it is revealed, in the midst of a bog-Irish population explosion amongst the “fastest-growin” church in the world” that:
?”Evry sperm is sacred, Evry sperm is great, IF a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate…”
?all in wonderful musical comedy. — _Seriously_, I view this at least once a year in lieu of chewing on some of David”s buttons for similar purposes.)
?Anyhow, wanking on, there is a wonderful little anecdote in one of Alan Watt”s books on how, as a youth, upon his confirmation in the Church, after the Bishop gave all the boys the slap on the face to remind them of the blows they may have to take for the sake of their faith (as “soldiers of the circles” or was it circle-jerkers???) after they then adjourned to the sacristy whereupon the real inner teaching of the Church would be revealed, along with the meaning of life, it was revealed unto them that if they wanked, their souls would get yanked, and it was off to hell for the lot! Such a slap in the soul:
?(from Alan Watts” _Beyond Theology_, p. 180)
?”Even as a child one would have expected that, beyond this historical pageantry, the core of one”s initiatory instructions would have been the revelation of some deep mystery about the nature of God, for, sure enough, every boy to be confirmed was taken apart for a very serious private talk with the school chaplain. Emotionally and dramatically, this was obviously the climax of one”s preparation, the moment in which the real secret meaning of the initiation was to be revealed. Naturally, no one kept the secret, and it was well known in advance that the VERY SERIOUS TALK was a grave warning against the evils of masturbation — an act which some of us at that age did not even know how to perform! In addition, then, to some uncertainty as to what we were being warned against, its dire results were defined so vaguely as to give infinite range to the imagination. Thus it was rumored among us that boys who “abused” themselves might shortly contract syphilis, gonorrhea, epilepsy, creeping paralysis, bubonic plague, or the Great Siberian Itch. Boys who thus “played with themselves” were always recognizable by the bags under their eyes, pimples on the chin, and boils on the crotch, and it was expected that their brains would eventually rot and come dripping through their noses.”
?Hmmm… sounds like some of the devil-patrol warnings of these channel-wankers.
?What comes into play here, off of Watts above and off of David”s description, is perhaps an answer to David”s earlier question at the end of the Oren Oracles: “It is beyond my comprehension how so many people can be taken in by this material, or am I missing something?”
?Well, from my wanked-out perspective, what I would offer as a response to the best question that has been asked thus far — WHAT”S MISSING? — (as in, what”s missing in our culture, what”s missing in Christianity, what”s missing in the Urantia movement to account for the appeal of the TM?) is provided in David”s description and Watt”s account, i.e., an exercise of the IMAGINATION!
?Now before you go off half-cocked, think one second of our virtual culture, where our tv shows and movies (unlike the good old days where the bad guys always got shot offscreen, or in Shakespearean theater where the violence always occurred offstage, or in the radio days of “The Phantom”, kids and other listeners, as my mother often used to say, had to *use their imaginations*) in all of todays graphic violence, horror, or sex on screen, there is little, if anything, that is left to the imagination. N”est ce pas?
?So, viewing this TM phenomena from this frame David, I would say that the appeal of the TM lies not so much in the material being generated, the teachings, the transcripts, the philosophy or lack thereof that is being spoken in all of these living rooms that Byron speaks of, as much as it is a chance for long-repressed Urantia book readers to *exercise their (spiritual and/or UB-informed) imaginations* — and yet David, I”m left wondering who”s getting screwed by whom if the TM _is_ a case of mass spiritual wanking, unless I accept the argument of the devil-patrollers that it is ol” Cal out to stick it to us? And certainly I was raised with as many proscriptions and penalties attached to the exercise of my sexual imagination as Watts” describes above, yet, from personal experience, while as a “manly man” I have to echo that (Supremes?) song of “…ain”t nothin” like the real thing baby…” in point of fact as an evolutionary human male whose had his quota of less than simultaneously-orgasmic sexual encounters, I would lie if I said that my imagination did not also come into play during even these “genuine” sexual encounters.
?I begin to wonder if this exercise of the imagination, which Thompson and Hillman have been speaking of for some time, may not be at the core of our social crises — for the imagination may be the key process in determining precisely how “experience gives meaning to values”
?page 1097: “Meaning is something which experience adds to value; it is the appreciative consciousness of values. An isolated and purely selfish pleasure may connote a virtual devaluation of meanings, a meaningless enjoyment bordering on relative evil. Values are experiential when realities are meaningful and mentally associated [using ”imagination”?], when such relationships are recognized and appreciated by mind.”
?If this analysis is valid, then perhaps we see the real danger behind all forms of “isolated and purely selfish pleasure” — I recall a time one day during my Peace Corps training in Dakar when all the volunteers went off early in the morning to visit an agricultural station, and didn”t return until late in the afternoon, and Soulieman our housekeeper, who hadn”t eaten all the while we were gone, when asked why not, replied that he didn”t want to eat alone — no isolated pleasures for this devout Muslim! And how we have come to relish our private pleasures in the more developed parts of the world… and how something like the TM comes along, offering such a strong social alternative to the apparently isolated pleasures of reading a book alone…. and how now, here, we logondonters overcome some another form of isolation…
?So, if this is so, then it really becomes an open question, for me, if I am called more to an exercise of my imagination by taking something literally or metaphorically — it would seem that herein lies the appeal of literalism, for I suppose I can get more of a rush out of trying to imagine myself riding atop a _real_ fandor, soaring over the garden, than if I just dismiss this as some story; is this imaginative capacity what we lose from childhood, that which gets so abused by the “real” world? Could this be why we arrive as adults with such a diminished “appreciative consciousness of values” — ?
?Further on 1097:
?”Values can never be static; reality signifies change, growth. Change without growth, expansion of meaning and exaltation of value, is valueless — is potential evil. The greater the quality of cosmic adaptation, the more meaning any experience possesses. Values are not conceptual illusions; they are real, but always they depend on the fact of relationships. Values are always both actual and potential — not what was, but what is and to be.
?”The association of actuals and potentials equals growth, the experiential realization of values… The supreme value of human life consists in growth of values, progress in meanings, and realization of the cosmic interrelatedness of both of these experiences.”
?So, back to literalism and the exercise of the imagination. Recall the Abraham story from the OT, and Hillman/Ventura”s comments:
?VENTURA: At the same time there”s the demand: ”I”m not going to tell you “Don”t take me literally” until you”ve traveled three days with this intent and you”re on the mountain and you”re holding the knife.” You have to live with this intent for as long as Jesus was in the tomb, you have to _really know what it means_ to take God literally, before he turns around and says, ”Don”t take me so literally.” Jesus never turned around and said, ”Don”t take me so literally.” The mistake Jesus made as a teacher was saying take it even _more_ literally. ”If you _think_ you”re committing adultery, you”re committing it.” That destroys the imagination. That”s what”s made Christian culture terrified of its own imagination for two thousand years. Here”s a thought: in history, the God of the last eon becomes the devil of the next. The serpent of the pagans become the devil of Judeo-Christianism…
?HILLMAN: Pan —
?VENTURA: — becomes Satan.
?HILLMAN: The Jews get seen as satanic in the Christian world.
?VENTURA: So is Jesus going to be the devil of the era to come?
?HILLMAN: Let”s not even ask the question “Is he going to be?” Let”s imagine it that way. In that case, we see the fundamentalist world as a satanic cult.
?VENTURA: And they”re projecting their satanic cults on other people, but their cult is not about Jesus, it”s about Satan.
?HILLMAN: I would say it a little differently. They are projecting satanism on everyone else, and they”re seeing satanism everywhere. Which means that their mindset is already satanic. You can only see what your eyes allow you to see, so if you”re seeing satanism your mindset has got satanism in it. Also, as we know, the amount of strange satanic cults going on in America is remarkable and is tied in with the multiple personality disorders that are appearing everywhere. So if that”s the case, that Christian fundamentalism is actually a satanic cult, then — the inner child, which was Jesus, is kicked out of Christianity, so the inner child is lost now.
?VENTURA: All those lost inner children running around the books of Bradshaw and Miller.
?HILLMAN: Pick up your original theme: the new religion always demonizes the old religion. In that case as we move into the twenty-first century after two thousand years of Christianity, Jesus will become demonized, is becoming demonized, becomes the new Satan, the new devil. In that case the holy child, which was associated with Jesus for two thousand years, the bambino, can no longer be associated there, is lost, is an archetypal figure without a symbolic representation.
?So where is that lost child, lost baby? That lost child becomes the thing in all Western psyches now, the central figure of the therapy cult. Then therapy, which started as a revolution against Christianity, will have become a kind of sublimated Christianity.
?An so, the spiritual therapy cult of the TM, (now beginning, as Byron”s post evidences, to distinguish itself from other “disturbed” and “desperate” forms of this age-old phenomenon of channeling) which started as a revolution against (staid and stodgy) UBism, becomes a kind of sublimated UBism, as we await the registration of the ™ for the TM, so we will then be able to know that we have the genuine article, the real McKoy, and not some cheap Sedona imitation — and the demon of the founders of the UB cult, that which the Sadlerites most strove to keep in the closet, that form of sordid spiritualism which Sadler himself tried bullishly to separate from “his” Urantia Papers, now becomes the heir-apparent to failed vehicles of social transmission, that which was most missing from the original plan.
?Phew — too much of a long strange trip it”s been! I”d better go shave my palms. This type of imaginative exercise always makes them break out…
17 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Response to “four fallacies”
Subject: Response to “four fallacies”
?Good evening, Logondonters…
?This is in response to Byron”s request that I respond to his “four fallacies” which he expressed in his post of 3/31/93 entitled “A raving review.”
?I had originally decided to not respond directly to this post because it seemed to be an expression of emotion rather than a well thought out set of statements. I thought Byron had clearly communicated his feelings through it and I had decided to pretty much leave it at that. Indeed, the lack of logical continuity and the frequent breakdown of metaphorical consistency in “raving review” make it difficult to formulate a response. Nevertheless, in response to Byron”s post earlier today, I will make an attempt to do so.
?Byron says that he presents “four fallacies” in this paper. The best I can discern is that they are as follows:
?1. The method by which I reach my conclusions is unacceptable. 2. My “argument about historicity” is mentioned although Byron fails to state what is fallacious about it or just what the problem is. 3. Confusing the text of a teaching situation with epochal revelation. 4. Equating the dangers of the FOG experience with the TM experience.
?I will attempt to address each of these in sequence.
?1. Byron says that “my method is unacceptable.” He says that I should have used *inductive* reasoning rather than *deductive* reasoning. My understanding of these terms, as used in philosophy are as follows (correct me if I”m wrong, Matthew): Inductive reasoning provides a rational means of arriving at a conclusion about the nature of a *specific occurrence* by examining other occurrences, noting their similarities, and thereby reaching some conclusion about the nature of the occurrence in question. Deductive reasoning provides a rational means of arriving at a *general rule* by examining a number of specific instances and noting similarities.
?It seemed to me that a deductive approach was not appropriate as a means of analyzing the TM; it was not my purpose to arrive at a general rule about the nature of TM “contacts”, but rather to arrive at an understanding of the nature of a specific religious phenomenon. My approach was to point out, not only similar situations which had occurred historically, but to also point to similarities between the religio-social contexts in which those situations occurred and the religio-social context in which the TM is taking place.
?Byron accuses me of doing “no primary research in the cultural environment of your own spiritual community…”. My research was academic in nature as is befitting a deductive approach. I surveyed the best and most comprehensive academic research done in the past few decades and clearly outlined the findings in the pages preceding my statement quoted by Byron. Byron appears, not only to be unable to refute the validity of any of this research, but to want to start with his interpretation of the phenomena in question as a given, and proceed from there to gather substantiating material. Incidentally, I consider the material to have been derived from my own spiritual community — the late 20th century community of individuals attempting to understand the significance of the teachings of Jesus and his gospel of the Kingdom.
?2. My “argument about historicity”….I failed to see any point at all which Byron made to support this “fallacy.” He makes his statement and then jumps to grandiose, unsupported claims about a “revelatory intrusion of unprecedented proportions” and about revelation “often” being “a surprise gift from those above us whose understanding of timing and the rhythms of our own history far exceeds our own.” He gives no examples nor does he offer a single argument in support of these groundless claims. As far as I can tell, he has not even clearly stated just what this second “fallacy” is.
?His statement that “To accuse the TM participants of ”lacking historical consciousness” while they are the actual embodiment of a living historical response to authentic revelation is absolutely silly” doesn”t even make rational sense. What on earth is the relationship between ”historical consciousness” and ”being a living historical response to authentic revelation”? Do the TM participants get automatically endowed with a knowledge of history? He also utterly fails to say *why* he thinks this is “absolutely silly.”
?3. “Confusing the text of a teaching situation with the text of an epochal revelation.” This is an outright falsehood. I not only have never confused the two, I have made a point of saying that the two are unrelated. It is Byron who, two sentences later says, “The UB is the text book! The celestials are our teachers who expound on it, helping us to bring the spirit to life from the dead words.”
?I asked him about this above claim in an earlier post (he never responded) and I will repeat it here. I have a TM transcript, posted hereon by Fred Harris attributed to Melchizedek which says the following:
?”We have…observed the use of the teachings of the Urantia Book as a method for people, individually and in groups, to maintain a kind of thought discipline over their brothers and sisters…[The Urantia Book] is not relevant to our mission.” Byron, how do you reconcile this with your 180 degree opposing statement above?
?Incredulous as it may seem, this same “Melchizedek” also says, “While we are always willing in the teacher mission to speak reverently of Michael and his role, the simple fact is that the mention of the life and death of the man proves a barrier.” What on earth are these “teachers” trying to accomplish while stating that the life and death of Jesus is a “barrier”?
?Byron careens from concept to concept in his writing and fails to make any rational connections between them. There is virtually nothing holding his “raving review” paper together except for his emotional expression. The spelling is good.
?4. “Continuing insistence on equating the dangers of the FOG experience with the TM experience.” I will begin by assuming this statement is only a careless semantic construct and that Byron really meant to accuse me of equating the dangers of the FOG experience with supposed dangers of the TM experience. In my paper, I cited some aspects of my experience at FOG which co- related with the findings of the academic research which I conducted. Again, he was unable to offer a rational argument — he conveniently redefined the meaning of the FOG experience to make it consistent with the TM enterprise and discounted the reports of those who actually experienced it. In addition, he makes (again, completely unsupported) a claim about last minute aversion of WW III, a claim which Matthew has already pointed out as having no basis in any known factual events.
?This is my best effort to respond to this paper. Byron, it is my hope that you will respond responsibly and thoughtfully to this post rather than simply taking offense and abandoning the effort. I suppose it depends on whether you see truth as something which you can discover in process with your friends or as something which you possess for the purpose of declaring it to that community.
17 Apr 1993 ???Philip Calabrese ?????What is divine revelation?
Subject: What is divine revelation?
?——- Hello Logondonters,
?For weeks I have been trying to catch up to the last posting but too many new ones keep appearing in my email box each day! Today I finally got to the temporary end of the list.
?I have been thinking about what constitutes divine revelation – auto revelation or epochal revelation. We are confronted with this crucial question both in judging our own inner personal experience and also when we attempt to judge the validity of someone else”s witness of “revelation”. And then there is also the Urantia Book, which I take as epochal revelation.
?Today we have people all over the world claiming to be part of a new revelation – the teaching mission (TM). Before that there was Vern Grimsley”s “messages” from the midwayers. I know others who entertain strong convictions concerning the validity of their “messages.” How to distinguish? Which are valid? Is truth really coming through?
?I have come to a conclusion about all this and I wish to share it.
?Those of us who take personal religion seriously, who take personal communion and communication with God seriously, as something possible and desirable, are thereby made susceptible to the self-deceptive aberrations of the human mind. Those who take their religion second hand from organized religions are told what should be regarded as valid and worthy of belief, and so no problem of judgment usually arises.
?The distinction between “divine revelation” and “human revelation” that I wish to submit for discussion is that divine revelation is always excellent, while human revelation falls significantly short.
?Now I believe that the Urantia Book is something like 99.9+ % true. Similarly, many of us have had supreme religious experiences in which everything was just right. But in each of the other channeled “revelations” that I am aware of, there is nothing like 99% accuracy. Even those who profess to believe these events to be revelatory admit that many significant errors are also contained in the messages. For example, I have heard the tapes in which Ham announced the future appearance of Gabriel to the group. At the next meeting of the group Ham elaborated and had everyone who believed these messages worked up to a fever pitch. The appointed day arrived and Gabriel was a no-show. People who were used to leaving at 10 pm waited until midnight, and some who thought that perhaps the Bright and Morning Star might only come in the morning, waited until dawn! The next week Ham took responsibility for the mix-up. At the Los Angeles meeting of the group, I ask Ham (channeled by Rebecca) whether he had failed to confirm the visit or if Gabriel had just not shown up as promised, or if perhaps this was coming from Rebecca”s own mind. The response was essentially that the human mind was not capable of understanding the full explanation but that Ham now understood it completely. Needless to say I was not satisfied with that answer, which could be given at any time that human logic discovered an error in the messages. There have also been many factual errors included in the messages along the way.
?Now as for whether there is valid truth coming through these messages, the answer is definitely yes. Truth is always coming through! Those of us who take the UB seriously or who take the Bible seriously about angels and other of Gods spiritual and intellectual superhuman ministers including the inner spirit of the Father, we all accept the notion that we are constantly being communicated with, just that we are mostly not conscious of this communication. So of course truth is coming through, all the time to one degree or another, modified by our own minds. So it is not surprising that many of the “messages” contain beautiful truths that may be quite edifying. But so are we all capable of expressing such spiritually fragrant words. The question is whether such communication deserves to be identified as special in some way. After all, in the past, as the UB says, divine visitations have occurred not because of our psychological delusions but in spite of them (or words to that affect).
?When judged by the above high standard of divine revelation, the Urantia Book passes, some of our supreme personal experiences pass, but the channeling messages of Ham et al, seem to me to fall in the category of normal divine-human, partially accurate revelation, the kind that we all constantly mull over in our minds sorting out. In dealing with Kermeth (spelling?) the strange preacher who came into the camp, Jesus had faith that the people, given time and access, would be able to tell the difference. In a little while, Kermeth left the camp taking only several unstable individuals with him. These others were no longer there to distract the more stable ones. So Jesus”s approach resulted in a very comfortable result.
?If the TM is not a divine revelation by the high standard articulated above, then why should it presume to take on the trappings of such, even claiming to supercede the UB? If it is only 35% pure or 65% pure by the account even of those who promote it as divinely inspired, why should any of us trade our own 35% or 65% (supplemented by the 99% of the UB) for something that can be so wrong on important matters? Are we so ready to hand over to others (channelers) so quickly the freedom many of us so painfully wrenched away from the Catholic Church or other official interpreter of divine revelation. Why are we so faithless in our own light that we want some go-between to personally hear and interpret the divine revelations coming each day to each of us directly in our inner minds and in our reading of the UB, or in the divine revelations contained in the Bible or other sources? Is it not the essence of the Gospel that we all are directly in contact with God, and that this contact should be cultivated rather than superceded by channeled messages of quality no better than human?
?So I submit that the TM is not what it claims, a revelation from on high, but that yes, divine truth is coming through these messages in spite of the superstitious part. But although God speaks to us even when we are so pretentious as to elevate our human-divine mix of thoughts to a pure divine revelation, we really should not use the partial truth that “comes through” to validate self-delusional notions of our special place in the interpretation of divine truth.
18 Apr 1993 ???leo elliott ???????????Jam On Brothers!
Subject: Jam On Brothers!
?Albemarle Co, VA April 18, 1993
?If quality of thinking is what we are to be about in our march toward light and life, then participation here is a most excellent practice! Thank you Phil (and welcome!) for a most excellent articulation of some of my current sentiments on the nature of epochal/auto revelation, and to Matthew for his usual solid delivery of rational argument — this distinction between morontial and spiritual, where they meet/overlap etc., is a crucial one for us as we assess all the information and experience whizzing by us as we congregate virtually and voluntarily on this Urantial traffic-island in the middle of the info-highway that VP Gore is going to promote for us.
?Phil, the succinct distinction “that divine revelation is always excellent, while human revelation falls significantly short” is a valuable one — I am wondering how “excellent” interfaces with “partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space.” (p. 1008)? While my personal “policy” so far as what I may sometimes personally wonder about whether events/experiences in my own life are “practically adapted” just for me and my own “local conditions in time and space” (things like the sometimes overwhelming ”coincidences” that have occurred in my life, many of which seem to involve songs or messages “coming to me” over/through the “transient” manifestation of a song on the radio), has been to follow a modified UB-position in that I do not dismiss these events entirely, indeed they are so overwhelming that I cannot, but I become very circumspect in who I may share them with and how I may frame them in particular conversations, presenting them as “overwhelmingly convincing coincidental messages” that I am loved and cared for by a Personal God who is aware of my every moment, my every travail, and has forces available to communicate this love and concern to me that are simply “overwhelming.”
?So in this sense then, when I first began to get a feel for the scope of the phenomena of the TM, how many folks all over were claiming to be hearing voices or whatever, my first response was to try to get a grasp of the phenomena itself which falls under the general rubric of “channeling” so I found Hastings” work (With the Tongues of Men and Angels) to be of immense value in clueing me in to the fact that this “stuff,” this form of communication from unseen beings speaking to/through humans has been going on since recorded history, and with this was presented some background onto which to place events of more recent and local interest, like FOG or the TM.
?Incidentally, is it an oxymoron to speak of “human revelation” above?
?”So of course truth is coming through, all the time to one degree or another, modified by our own minds. So it is not surprising that many of the ”messages” contain beautiful truths that may be quite edifying. But so are we all capable of expressing such spiritually fragrant words. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SUCH COMMUNICATION DESERVES TO BE IDENTIFIED AS SPECIAL IN SOME WAY.” (caps mine, sorry Logondonters, but I think this is the issue, so far as we are engaging in a conversation about the “truth-content” or the “reality” of the TM-messages, and thanks to Phil again for summing it up so well. — However, off of some of some of our dialog with David K, I feel we may be missing the forest for the trees if we miss the fact that the “real purpose” of the TM may not be so much the reception of “true messages” as the juicing up of study groups into something more than they have been in the past, and to see if this is so we might look again at Dan Massey”s analysis, as well as Neibuhr”s, Sabatier”s, as well as the UB”s. — In this vein, the accumulation of a database of intro-stories, here inaugurated by Peter Ferguson, may well be the synergistic-moneyhoneybee side-effect-that- becomes-the-main-effect of all of our sometimes “in your face” conversations, insofar as this medium presents a possibility for the juicing up of the quality of thinking of the UB readership.)
?Matthew, I”m not sure if I was the “local person” whom Byron was referring to in the quote you cited from his most recent post (“… what do you say to the local person who stated publicly that even if Machiventa materializes on April 24, and even if it were witnessed by 200 people, he still wouldn”t believe the claims of the TM, since Caligastia could conceivably arrange for such a demonstration”) — earlier, I had offered that, as with these alleged visitations or materializations of Mary (all over it seems, one recently in Cold Spring, KY, and lots of weeping-madonna statues all over as well, accompanied at times with stigmata or other manifestations in/to the local believer-community), the seemingly “miraculous” in human experience is at best a validation for persons or small groups only, as it seems to have been in Jesus” time — another case of “partial, transient, and practically adapted to local condiditons in time and space” — and seldom if ever a blanket endorsement for a whole movement or religious movement. According to the U.S. News cover story I cited earlier, the manifestations of the stigmata with this roller-coaster-riding parish priest seemed to abate after a couple of years; the weeping-statues seemed to occur related to this particular priest, in that a bishop would give this priest a statue from his church, and it would begin to weep as well. For the believers, this priest was a holy, chosen man; for the skeptics, they would listen to the claims of a professional debunker who claims he has discovered some unrevealed technique for being able to make statues weep anytime, anyplace.
?Re Matthew”s and David”s conversation about the distinction between inductive and deductive, I would have to support Matthew”s position: “Induction never has the logical finality possessed by deduction. That is , you can (where appropriate), deduce truth/fact (infer from the general to the specific). but you can”t induce (infer from specific to general) truth/fact, only possibility.”
?Bucky Fuller posited what he called the “Principle of Synergetic Advantage” which stated that, so far as having an informed-perspective on the general overview of what”s going on, that considerably more benefits accrue when going from the general to the particular than vice versa. Sort of like the pilot flying overhead in a plane has a much better overview of the lay of the land and what the shortest distance might be between any two points and whether the bridge up ahead might be washed out, than the driver cruising along in his Buick roadster. — Of course, this can be offset by Blakes” observation about being able to (poetically) see the universe in a grain of sand or an ultimaton or a baseball game or a TM message, so go figure.
?It is an ongoing privilege to witness the quality of thinking here passing by. Michael, your quote-pitch selection is _excellent_ as ever, ever reminding me of how I need to remain open to possibilities, even as I may remain reluctant to ascribe any specialness to their delivery.
?Enjoying the brotherhood,
18 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Of Spiritual Data Buffers
Subject: Of Spiritual Data Buffers
?Good Evening, Logondonters…
?I”ve never participated in *any* activity related to The Urantia Book which has been as stimulating as this forum; thank you all for sharing your lives, thoughts and experiences. I have a sense of shared exploration here which is most delightful.
?Peter, the story of your cousin sounds tragic. While I feel certain that the mansion world experience compensates us for the traumas of mortal life that might be experienced here, it is still sad to see such suffering and to recognize the magnitude of the tragedy in so many lives and families. I suppose that witnessing this continuous carnage from the rebellion is part of the Agondonter experience. I require myself to look at it, to feel it, to absorb it into my system with the hopes that it will yield wisdom for effectively dealing with whatever future situation I might find myself in. This is no joke, here on this planet; none of us will escape unscathed…..
?I appreciate your thoughts on driving Hack. You have a unique opportunity to really speak to people. I wonder if all your fares are truly random….
?A couple of years ago I attended a family funeral. We were to drive from the chapel to the cemetery, a trip of about an hour. The family limo was full so I sat in the front with the driver, separated from the others by a soundproof window. He and I had a *great* talk on this trip. He had been driving funeral limos for over 20 years. He was a deeply spiritual man whose ideas seemed to transcend mere religion. He told me that his great satisfaction in life was being able to talk with people about God and their spiritual lives. He said that he felt he was working right where God wanted him. As he said to me, “When someone is sitting where you are today, there”s usually only one thing on their mind.” It was quite rich and your story reminded me once again of this great man working quietly behind the scenes…
?Michael, thank you for your thoughts and quotes. You articulate your ideas very well and send me scurrying back to my UB. The quote you mention from page 1778 is interesting indeed, particularly the phrase “…thus becoming free to attain consciousness of the higher currents of spirit concept and celestial communication…” Can you find any other quotes which elaborate on this so as to enhance it”s meaning? I certainly do not, with my limited knowledge, want to discount this quote, but I do need to say that I am more than a little suspicious of the Rodan papers. I sense there is a purpose in presenting them which I have not quite fathomed. I started to investigate it at one time, many years ago, but did not have the philosophical skills to pursue it. What I think I see are some very subtle but nevertheless significant differences between Rodan”s philosophy and the teachings of Jesus. I think the Rodan papers were included in order to stimulate a dialectic between his ideas and some of those presented by Jesus. This would not negate the ideas of either of them, but would rather lead to another level of revelation in the dialectical process which could be replicated in the attempt to fully reconcile the two. It would require a great deal of study to undertake this and a great deal more of philosophical skill than I possess. So let”s keep this quote in our buffer but I have it flagged for confirmation from some other source.
?Your other quotes are also very stimulating. I would like to briefly comment on them but up front need to say that I am exploring these ideas and issues — I am very far from a final understanding of the phenomenon in question — so these are merely observations and questions that are a part of an ongoing study.
?>”I think you are confusing the difference in external progressions >versus internal pathways” (original post has this statement associated with these quotes: pg 102, “In the domain…”, pg 103, “The Third Source and Center…”, pg 638, “mind is the indispensable…” and pg 1209, “When the development…”)
?It”s not so much a confusion of external progressions with internal pathways as it is a sense of how limited we are, particularly in the area of social interactions of *any* sort, by the available linguistic symbols. I seem to be able *only* to conceptualize things in terms of these symbols. I can grasp spiritual *values* and to an extent, spiritual *ideals* without relying on linguistic symbols, but on a level of human interaction of any sort, this limitation becomes a dominating factor. Love enables us to overcome this to a degree. Religion and art give us access to some additional abstract symbols which begin to extend our intellectual reach. But by and large, I think that culture and symbols are the big deal, the limiting factors which keep us from bringing the spiritual into the domains of human culture. Jesus” teachings about the Kingdom really speak to me here. I see human culture as a lens through which we can see (with more or less distortion) the reality of God. It is up to us to keep grinding and shaping the lens so that the vision becomes crystal clear to all of us — it is a group effort and a project which will continue for a long, long time as more and more of God is revealed to us. And it is not the word symbols, imo, which are all important, but rather the symbols created in the minds of people who receive love and service from those who are discovering God in their inner lives.
?I think that our dependency on symbols is what limits us, and while we can each transcend this to a degree in our own inner lives, it seems impossible to adequately conceptualize this experience. Every expression falls so far short that it seems to often do more harm than good. It”s like trying to describe Bach”s Toccata and Fugue in D minor with words to someone who”s never heard music.
?Every time I start to seriously look into these matters, I become dissatisfied with my concepts of such basics as mind, personality, spirit, etc., and am forced to dig deeper. But then, it”s the process that is of value, rather than that which is discovered….your quote of page 638 is like this; I”m not quite sure what to make of it, particularly in light of the claims being made by TM advocates.
?Your quote from page 1209 is one I have considered many times. I have been particularly intrigued with the phrase, “Lack of spiritual capacity makes it very difficult to transmit to such a material intellect the spiritual truths resident in the higher superconsciousness.”
?This statement has led me to believe that there is some means by which the Adjuster is able to “pre-symbolize” concepts and then “transmit” them to the material intellect (biological brain, storehouse of symbols) when conditions are propitious for the proper symbolic assimilation of these higher concepts. The reason that I stopped using psychotropic chemicals, many years ago, was that I felt I was biochemically invading this domain, kind of like trying to storm the gates of heaven, and that it was in my best interests to not do this. I remember praying one day after a particularly significant journey and receiving what I felt to be a pretty clear message which was essentially the following; “Look, you”ve got to trust us to manage your conceptual growth. If you keep coming in here and helping yourself to this material which we are preparing for you and which we will make available to you at the optimal moment in your experience, we are going to have to back ourselves out to a more distant location in your superconscious where we will be far less able to truly help you.” Needless to say, I took this very seriously and shortly thereafter committed myself to the objective of maintaining biochemical continuity and stability of my neurochemical system. The quote about “trust everything beyond the dead level of consciousness to the Adjuster” comes to mind.
?I should add that the above is my own opinion and is not based on anything derived from the UB, so it should be considered with caution. But it has proven helpful to me in my consideration of the TM phenomenon. Maybe there is such a domain, and maybe there are a variety of ways in which it can be tapped, some safe and perhaps some not so safe. If the ministry of our spiritual benefactors is uniform to all mortals, that is no one is given a greater degree of help than any other, it might be useful to consider our unconscious as a sort of osmotic membrane. If the spiritual pressure is increased on the other side of the membrane, than this material would more easily be pushed into consciousness. It also stands to reason that, while this spiritual pressure is uniform on the spiritual side, such uniformity does not exist on the mortal side. That is, there are going to be individuals who by genetic inheritance, education, spiritual motivation, etc. will be more conscious of this process than others.
?How difficult it must be, for our unseen friends to attempt to uplift us in this way. The problem occurs right at the point where the material comes into consciousness and the individual mortal assigns a meaning to it, attaches a symbol derived from human culture to a phenomena derived from our spiritual benefactors. This is the point where we need to focus our very best efforts in terms of knowledge, wisdom and insight so that we can perfect this process — this is the interface between God and human culture and we”ve got to figure out how to make it work well.
?Michael, you present some very good arguments and then ask the question, “…so if the quarantine would be lifted, why should we not expect to begin receiving messages from our elder spiritual brothers and sisters?” My opinion on this is based only on the feeling I have gotten from the UB about administrative procedures and about just what it means to be a *human being* — what sort of experiences would honor the human situation and what experiences would lead to a mutant form of mortal consciousness. I think that if the quarantine were lifted and if that meant that there was to be an enhanced spiritual ministry to the mortals on the planet, that this would not take the form of discreete messages to specific individuals, but rather an increase in the osmotic pressure on the whole which I briefly described above. But then, I really have very little on which to base such speculation, so it must remain just that.
?Thank you again for your ideas and particularly for your work up there on the bridge of our silicon starship…
?Time to call it a night, happy trails to all.
18 Apr 1993 ???Ron Darby ??????Why not proof?
Subject: Why not proof?
?MR>There are plenty of things these alleged contact celestials could do MR>to…
?MR>I have already suggested various kinds of tests (in a previous post MR>perhaps not seen by most of the newer members of the list).
?Up until now, I haven”t felt any need for objective verification of the TM because, as I have said before, the TM and channeling and such just didn”t strike me as of much importance. However, my viewpoint is beginning to change somewhat. The TM, T/R, cosmic claims, and so forth are becoming so divisive that it seems to me that they do need to be addressed. I recall one of the transcripts where the teacher talked about discussion among the celestials regarding the advisability of “visualizing” to people. As I recall, they decided that the TM would proceed much faster if they “proved” their reality by becoming visual to us people.
?>From this it appears that the teachers and their leaders have decided that it _would_ be advisable to provide some “proof”.
?So, Matthew, please re-post your tests and I second the call for good faith ideas as to what to present to these TM teachers. I personally request that those of you with contacts within the TM provide this group with the best T/R you can produce.
?What I am looking for is a good faith effort to get verification on a material/mental level as opposed to purely personal spiritual discernment. If necessary, I will produce the transcripts where the celestial stated this kind of thing has been decided as beneficial.
?I agree with Matthew that there are many other means besides “visualization” for beings such as we are talking about to prove themselves. We don”t need parlor tricks. The original forum must have gone through the same process.
?To the TM … I think you should accept the reasonableness of this request. The T/R and teacher must buy-in to the purpose of this process … that being to verify the reality of the TM and person/teacher contact. Only after the validity of this process has been reasonably demonstrated to the satisfaction of the bulk of the list should the teacher proceed with it”s own agenda … supposedly proceeding with the TM with us as participants.
?Both sides please respond. Suggestions, additions, corrections and so forth. Is this a reasonable request?
19 Apr 1993 ???leo elliott ???????????Dialectical Limitations?
Subject: Dialectical Limitations?
?Albemarle County, VA April 19, 1993
?David, methinks thou dost protest too much the limitations of symbolic communication — sometimes it works!
?First let me say that while I have never been suspicious of the Rodan papers, I have shared your sense that “there is a purpose in presenting them which I have not quite fathomed” — as with some other batched groups of papers, like the marriage and family papers, the purpose of the authors may very well have been “to stimulate a dialectic between his ideas and some of those presented by Jesus” leading to “another level of revelation in the dialectical process which could be replicated in the attempt to fully reconcile the two” — aka synergy, or the behavior of whole conversations unpredicted by the behavior of any of the individual speakers — meanings revealed in the experience of the conversation unpredicted by an inventory of the values of the individual conversants.
?Where I sense you genuflecting too much David is in your “sense of how limited we are, particularly in the area of social interactions of *any* sort, by the available linguistic symbols.” We have come a ways from the days of athletes advertising the lung-clearing and stimulative properties of cigarettes, to the time now, only half-a-century later, where this practice of nicotinism is being expurgated from the list of acceptable social interaction in one community after another (albeit mostly in the communities of the developed world — we still seem to feel no shame in exporting nicotinism to third world nations under the banner of inter- national commerce, where the cigarette as a symbol of Marlboro manliness is still potent.)
?I cite the advertising industry here as perhaps the most highly evolved arena of social interaction, specifically devoted to the development, testing, and marketing of symbols of all sorts. Recall that William Irwin Thompson said that it was the “hippies of the sixties who were doing R & D for Madison Avenue of the seventies.” When I went to a Robert Hunter concert several years ago and saw all the “designer tye-dieds” being ported by all the young collegians, I realized how prescient Thompson had been. — We _have_ made some changes, and the rush with which a well-crafted marketing campaign can sweep the country is testament to just how fast symbolic communication can take effect.
?When you say that “I can grasp spiritual *values* and to an extent spiritual *ideals* without relying on linguistic symbols, but on a level of human interaction of any sort, this limitation becomes a dominating factor,” you raise a very interesting question as to the relation between ]] values [[ and ]] ideals [[ — and cause me to wonder if perhaps the notion of “practical adaptation” might be an appropriate attribute of the “excellence” that Phil Calabrese called to our attention yesterday.
?In other words, a choice word or other symbol, spoken in the right tone at the right time, with the “dramatic timing” that theater folk speak of, might be as near as we get to “excellence” on _this_ level of human interaction. Same with a choice book, or conversation, or “piece” of music.
?I am also left to wonder, given the development of studied symbology as practiced in the advertising industry, if there are not hierarchies of symbols, each with their own particular density of meaning, their own particular resonance pattern in the human neuro-linguistic receivers, such that the instance of a single book or word or song, at a particular moment in human history, can have enormous consequences in the thought stream of humanity, washing away by its “osmotic pressure” all, or part, of the accreted residue of a lifetime of fearful thinking. As well in the thought stream of an individual mortal, where such a “singularity” may by its overwhelming presence _suddenly_ connect that which once seemed so distant, generating a completely new and streamlined channel of flow, much the way a flooding stream may suddenly jump the loop of its meander, eliminating the U or horseshoe part of the flow entirely, connecting points of the stream which had previously been close in space but distant in time.
?”Religion and art give us access to some additional abstract symbols which begin to extend our intellectual reach. But by and large, I think that culture and symbols are the big deal, the limiting factors which keep us from bringing the spiritual into the domains of culture.”
?So, a pint cant hold a quart, etc. But, for symbols, is a picture not worth a thousand words, at times; and at other times, does a single word not evoke a thousand pictures. I think, at this point David, we may be reaching the limit of synergistic-import of the dialectical model or process, and be required to step into the experiential model, which as you will recall is the model ascribed to Sabatier by Dulles, for it is only, to me, in the realm of the poetic/aesthetic that we begin to access the spiritual in ways that do not come via the realm of the dialectical.
?This notion of access to the spiritual is very intriguing, very tricky, and I suppose at the center of much of the debate over the “reality” of the TM phenomena — whether or not the TMmers are really gaining access to some new circuits now opening up, or just some aspect of psychological reality. I have always been intrigued by the metaphoric possibilities displayed in the phenomenon of biological reproduction, where only one sperm out of thousands and thousands swimming madly up the canal toward the waiting ovum, gains access — and this accomplished by some process whereby this one sperm is able to somehow relax the surface tension of the protected egg long enough to penetrate and fuse, communicating its genetic symbols to the next generation, after which all remaining suitors must wiggle to extinction.
?What is the “return on investment” ratio here of “symbols sent” to “messages received”? Or think of how many acorns are produced by a given Oak tree, over its 50-100 year lifespan, to produce how many surviving offspring. (My personal favorites are the helicopter-spinners of the Maple trees, which don”t make nearly the noise on your roof when they rain down in a high wind!)
?And what does it take for us as individuals, or as a culture, to be able to relax this surface tension long enough to allow penetration of these higher meanings?
?Your next statement David may reveal something of the nature of the “dialectical bias” if I may describe it thus: “I see human culture as a lens through which we can see (with more or less distortion) the reality of God. It is up to us to keep grinding and shaping the lens so that the vision becomes crystal clear to all of us — it is a group effort and a project which will continue for a long, long time as more and more of God is revealed to us..” The bias, which I am probably misinterpreting, is that there seems to be implied here one crystal clear vision which is a cultural product, which reveals the reality of God to individual members of that culture. It seems closer to historical reality, as I apprehend it, to say that the culture beholds the reality of God manifested in the crystal clear visions of its individual prophets and religious leaders, those who are able to articulate, practically-adapted for their generation, that set of symbols which speaks clearly to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
?Certainly, the culture would be that which provides the unending source of sand to grind both our indivdual and our collective lenses, the “grist for the mill” in Ram Dass” sense, but surely _in culture_ there are many types of lenses, as there are for individuals, each “practically adapted” to facilitate the vision of the respective users.
?I concur wholeheartedly that “it is not the word symbols… which are all important, but rather the symbols created in the minds of people who receive love and service from those who are discovering God in their inner lives.”
?And while I agree again that “our dependency on symbols is what limits us” and that “we can each transcend this to a degree in our own inner lives,” I”m not agreed that it “seems impossible to adequately conceptualize this experience.” Adequacy seems to be imply some ability to cover all instances in all time, so in this sense perhaps you are right. I have often seen the dialectical process as a conversation between adequacy on the one hand, and accuracy on the other, neither of which is ever fully satisfied. But if this be our goal, the establishment of a completely adquate, and at the same time totally accurate, conceptual system to describe our individual or cultural lens-grinding process, then I would submit that we have placed the symbol ahead of the service, the concept ahead of the communication.
?I know deeply David that this is not what you are about; I suggest this as a possible limitation of the dialectical model/process for revelation, and simply suggest that the experiential may be the domain which bounds the dialectical, the way out if you will, fraught as it certainly is with the hazards and uncertainty your psychotropic voyages describe well.
?And in fairness, I would have to say that the TMmers may be perhaps suffering from a bad PR campaign, for the rap they are taking seems to be that they have placed communication ahead of concept (or indeed, that they have no concepts whatsoever, just flowery fragrance with no fruit to be born.)
?DEEP THOUGHT of the day comes from p. 1013:
?”Modern man is confronted with the task of making more readjustments of human values in one generation than have been made in two thousand years. And this all influences the social attitude toward religion, for religion is a way of living as well as a technique of thinking.”
?While I suppose one may quibble over the definition of the length of a generation, this statement would certainly seem to imply some urgency in the flow of the “osmotic pressure” — and at the same time to belie those apocryphal _obiter dicta_ of the post-1955 celestial communications which advised Christy that the UB was not for this generation. Certainly its full fruits will not be born for many generations, but the need for its input into our symbolic-programming endeavors seems immediate and immense.
?(And I suppose a good PR man for the TM might make the argument that it is coming about more as a call to a new way of living than as a presentation of some novel technique of thinking; or perhaps, as a renewed way of living, _as if_ one were in daily and immediate celestial contact.)
?In sum David, I would have to say you have located the critical path in your statement that “The problem occurs right at the point where the material comes into consciousness and the individual mortal assigns a meaning to it, attaches a symbol derived from human culture to a phenomena derived from our spiritual benefactors. This is the point where we need to focus our very best efforts in terms of knowledge, wisdom and insight so that we can perfect this process — this is the interface between God and human culture and we”ve got to figure out how to make it work well.”
?Might I suggest that the process of meaning-assignation or symbol-attachment may not be totally a user-definable routine, that perhaps this process has been well-studied and already perfected by our celestial associates on many other worlds, and that it is the interface between God and the individual which provides the access to the transformation of human culture? I am certainly not in the same musical league with you and Peter, but isn”t there some example given of how when a single string of a guitar or cello is plucked, other strings on other instruments in the local environment will then, “of their own accord” begin to vibrate at the same frequency? Could this be used to describe one form of the experiential process of celestial facilitation? I know this would be described as in “involuntary process” and as such may appear to be an “invasion” to some — but somehow I do not see this process of spiritual resonance to be necessarily an abrogation of human will dignity. Thoughts?
?Your brother in such stimulating speculation,
19 Apr 1993 ???leo elliott ???????????Nancy J to David K on TM
Subject: Nancy J to David K on TM
?April 3, 1993 >From Nancy Johnson, specifically to David Kantor I”ve been carefully reading your input regarding your FOG experience as Leo sends it to me by snailmail. It behooves us all to study the various repercussions of severe disillusionment. Did you know your words reveal (to the intuitive female mind) a wounded pride which refuses to be comforted and healed? A burn that you keep wrapped in ice? I long to comfort you, because Jesus said he will stop at nothing to restore self-respect to those who have lost it. But it should be noted that he threw in the qualifying phrase: “…and who really desire to regain it.” My intuition is sometimes reliable, so I urge you to step aside from your experience long enough to take an objective look at how another person handled his trauma. Your situations are entirely different, but your reactions appear similar. The following is a true story from which we can all learn if we have ears to hear: Dr. Truitt, now deceased, was once pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, the largest in the country (world?). He went on a hunting trip one weekend and accidentally shot and killed his friend. His remorse was more than he could bear. In the pulpit, before a large congregation, he bared his soul and vowed that he would never smile again. As far as anyone knows, he was true to his word. His congregation were mightily impressed, because it “proved” he was sincere. But he couldn”t forgive himself, so he NEVER SMILED AGAIN. Dr. Truitt, as I view it, was somewhat spiritually comatose for the remainder of his life. How can love flow from a heart that refuses to smile? What did he teach the congregation about the Father”s love by his example? Your warnings are well taken, because the wise person can learn from the mistakes of others. These pitfalls are critically scrutinized in the Text of ACIM, which sheds additional light. You clearly recognize the danger of getting caught up in the false sentiment of “specialness,” but you have not communicated that you recognize the pitfalls of guilt (or even that you experienced it in the aftermath of the crash). I didn”t quite understand how guilt, as ACIM portrays it, is the sneakiest ego trick of them all until one of the women in our study group related an experience she”d just had. She”d been on a spiritual high for several days after reading about the Supreme and really feeling that connection. She and her husband went off for the weekend in their motor home and stopped at a park with a pretty pond and beautiful ducks. She was in “Paradise” until she witnessed some children as they began chasing the ducks, getting rowdy and really frightening them. She would have gone out to stop them, but some man beat her to it, getting rowdy with the children and really frightening them. She was furious with all of them, and then she felt awful that her spiritual high had come crashing down. She spent the rest of the weekend alternating between anger at the children for upsetting the ducks, the man for upsetting the children, and herself for judgments about their behavior and the loss of her spiritual ecstasy. She said she felt so guilty, and suddenly it dawned on me! So that”s why guilt is the sneakiest ego trick of them all. She was so preoccupied with her judgments and guilt that she didn”t DO ANYthing! She could have gone out to the children and engaged them in friendly conversation leading to appreciation of the wonder of ducks and a loving way to interact with them. She could have engaged in a friendly conversation with the man who didn”t understand the art of redirecting the energy of adventurous children into a lesson that could have served them for a lifetime. She had an opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade if she had chosen to act in the ever-present NOW instead of dwelling on the past. But she didn”t. She was able to realize she had lost an opportunity on THAT occasion, and fortunately she regained her composure when she saw that she profited from the experience by learning how to make lemonade as FUTURE occasions might arise. She didn”t say she”d never go camping again or experience another spiritual high. With all this in mind, I would quote from page 555: “Even as mortals, so have these angels been father to many disappointments, and they will point out that sometimes your most disappointing disappointments have become your greatest blessings. Sometimes the planting of a seed necessitates its death, the death of your fondest hopes, before it can be reborn to bear the fruits of new life and new opportunity.” Can you understand that the FOG experience may have been just as disappointing to your angels? They ask: “If you fail, will you rise indomitably to try anew?” Isn”t it conceivable that they probably took their own advice, only this time they built in some safety features? What you may not realize is that we Johnny- come-lately groups are not dazzled by the “phenomenon.” It”s becoming too common for us to regard our experience as unique and special. “When you feel important, you lose energy to the wear and tear of ego dignity so that there is little energy left to do the work.” We heard that message loud and clear. No, what drew us to the TM was the other message we heard: “Very important is the work of preparation for the next higher sphere, but nothing equals the importance of the work of the world in which you are actually living.” We regard this work as transforming ourselves, because this — and only this — has the power to transform the world. As students of The UB, we have no problem recognizing the fatherhood of God, but until the TM, I”ve witnessed nothing in the movement that focuses so dynamically on the living reality of the brotherhood of man. Remember Thomas”s reaction after the crucifixion? He had placed all his faith in the indestructable Son of God, who was now lying in a tomb after being scourged, humiliated, and hung on a cross to die between two thieves. How could Thomas the Thinker have been so wrong? Hear this: “Thomas spent a lonesome week alone with himself in the hills around about Olivet. During this time he saw only those at Simon”s house and John Mark. It was about nine o”clock on Saturday, April 15, when the two apostles found him and took him back with them to their rendezvous at the Mark home. The next day Thomas listened to the telling of the stories of the Master”s various appearances, but he steadfastly refused to believe. He maintained that Peter had enthused them into thinking they had seen the Master. Nathaniel reasoned with him, but it did no good. There was an emotional stubbornness associated with his customary doubtfulness, and this state of mind, coupled with his chagrin at having run away from them, conspired to create a situation of isolation which even Thomas himself did not fully understand. He had withdrawn from his fellows, he had gone his own way, and now, even when he was back among them, he unconsciously tended to assume an attitude of disagreement. He was slow to surrender; he disliked to give in. Without intending it, he really enjoyed the attention paid him; he derived unconscious satisfaction from the efforts of all his fellows to convince and convert him. He had missed them for a full week, and he obtained considerable pleasure from their persistent attentions.” But the doubting apostle said: “I will not believe unless I see the Master with my own eyes and put my finger in the mark of the nails.” (If this sounds familiar, be of good cheer. You”re worth it.) When Jesus appeared in their midst shortly afterward, he said: “…Your mission to the world is founded on the fact that I lived a God-revealing life among you; on the truth that you and all other men are the sons of God; and it shall consist in the life which you will live among men–the actual and living experience of loving men and serving them, even as I have loved and served you…The Jews have extolled goodness; the Greeks have exalted beauty; the Hindus preach devotion; the far-away ascetics teach reverence; the Romans demand loyalty; but I require of my disciples life, even a life of loving service for your brothers in the flesh.” And THIS, David, is the message we hear repeatedly stressed in the TM. True, the teachers have implied that somewhere down the line–IF we get the hang of living the FOURTH epochal revelation–a new mission will be assigned to promote the FIFTH. It is not so important AT THIS TIME that participants be fully schooled in the teachings of The UB, although they are expected to become so. Jesus” message has been around for 2000 years, so anyone who will may participate. If you really understand the importance of this phase of the mission, you will more easily understand why transmission errors regarding newer information in the book are not a major concern. We understand the TR sometimes gets in the way or doesn”t always have a grasp of the higher concepts a more experienced reader may inquire about. It is my opinion that the teachers would prefer that, for the time being, we direct our efforts toward learning to walk before trying to run, or at least get a GED before trying to work on our Ph.D. This is not glamorous work, David, getting in touch with all our “pet somethings” that deter us from living fully and wholeheartedly in the kingdom NOW. But I will say something in favor of their technique. It is not THEIR intention to make fools of us, even though I”ve been known to do that to myself on occasion. Whatever shortcomings we may have, we are all committed to living what we”ve learned, and the teachers seem to be honoring that by employing techniques we might expect on normal worlds, where mortal ascent is “more like undergoing an educational training when compared with the intense conflicts of Urantia mortals.” Sometimes I imagine it may be similar to what Adam and Eve used to teach their children in the garden schools about: “…(3) The relation of individual rights to group rights and community obligations. … (6) Co-ordination of conflicting duties and emotions,” etc. So, my fellow sojourner, I do not share your fears regarding the TM, but I thank you for submitting them for our consideration, and I hope anyone who might be inclined to feel “chosen” or “special” because of it will heed your words well. You are absolutely correct in this matter as it might be viewed from your experience. I didn”t get caught up in the FOG affair, because a couple of years prior to that I was involved in the “Richardson Event.” The channelings seemed worthy enough, but as I perceived it at the time, WE were not mature enough to participate in this kind of mission. I wanted no part of working with overinflated egos or wonder seekers. So I was cautious in accepting that perhaps we had grown somewhat since those days. But as the TM spread, I saw how quickly those participating managed to get past the “wonder seeking” phase, and I sensed the value of what they were doing. Okay, I lacked faith and sold them short. There”s one thing we, the Thomas”s of this world, have in our favor. We can analyze and doubt, but when we see that the power of the spirit is great and our doubts overexaggerated, we can change our minds and say, “Let”s go!” Have you noticed that sometimes we use the very same quotes to support opposing viewpoints? Very amusing, yet it”s less of a paradox when we pause to remember that “all things work together for good to those who love God.” In the final analysis, isn”t that what”s important? Suffice it to say, I know the pitfalls. So do you. But aren”t we supposed to let pressure develop stability and confidence? Can you justify becoming cynical for the remainder of your life because at one point in your career you were naive and didn”t recognize the pitfalls? If you can, there is no God, and The UB is a hoax. Is it, David?
19 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Female Intuition Fails Again
Subject: Female Intuition Fails Again
?Quick response to Nancy J; Nancy, thanks for your concern but your “intuitive female mind” has apparently failed you once again as far as giving you an accurate assessment of another person”s inner state.
?UB pg 402, The Spirit of Intuition, “Quick perception, primitive physical and inherent reflex instincts, directional and other self-preservative endowments of all mind creations; the only one of the adjutants to function so largely in the lower orders of animal life and the only one to make extensive functional contact with the nonteachable levels of mechanical mind.”
?Nothing here about an automated wounded pride detector.
?Guilt? No. Embarrassment? Definitely. I did my best in the FOG situation and felt no guilt when I was proven to be in the wrong. But I was deeply embarrassed and somewhat sobered by the thought that other people had made substantial decisions seriously affecting their lives based on my reports of having received “messages”. I now take the issuing of such reports far more seriously than I did before because I now experientially know about some of the long-term repercussions which these things have in peoples lives.
?Yes, I am sure that our angels experience our failures and mistakes much in the way that we experience the failures and mistakes of our children; we can emphathize with them, but as adults we can also help them get back on their feet and on their way. I have felt this kind of ministry coming from my angels at a number of junctures in my life.
?Your communique seems to contain mostly your own projections; you have not accurately accessed the real nature of my life. In terms of living fully and wholeheartedly, I have always enjoyed pushing my envelope and continue to do so today. My life is rich and full of a variety of experiences, on-going experiments, adventures and plans. I have a wonderful marriage to the most delightful companion I think any human being could enjoy, and I have a 16 year old daughter who is a delight to live with, a beautiful young woman rapidly slipping into adulthood. I have a business which keeps me on the cutting (bleeding) edge of technologies which interest me and I am involved with a community of thinkers exploring the late 20th century frontiers of theological thought. I enjoy a rich relationship with God as well as friendships with a great variety of people. I have problems to deal with as well as anyone else — my daughter has a potentially fatal disease which we monitor constantly and which has provided us with a number of hours sitting in the hospital emergency room, my parents are aging and have problems and needs of their own. But it is a good life and I enjoy it fully. You have totally misjudged me, Nancy.
?Cynical? Not in the least. If I were walking down the street and was feeling hungry and came upon a baloney sandwich lying in the gutter and picked it up and ate it, and subsequently became violently ill with food poisoning, do you think I would ever pick up and consume another baloney sandwich from the gutter again? Would you call me cynical for not trying once more to eat such a thing? Would you accuse me of having a “wounded pride which I keep wrapped in ice?” Give me a break.
19 Apr 1993 ???Philip Calabrese ?????TM and things
Subject: TM and things
?Leo – Thanks very much for welcoming me to these discussions, and my compliments also go to all of you who keep this electronic talk-a-thon going and who keep my mailbox full. I doubt that I can keep up with your pace.
?Leo, you ask, “What is missing in Urantia Book readers that is supplied by what the TM offers? That is a very pertinent question. One thing offered is the promise of a clearer, quicker “channel” to knowing God”s will, or at least the will of God”s higher beings. So it seems to me that part of the attraction is due to our general inability to make efficient contact with our Thought Adjusters, angels, midwayers and other higher beings. Here we are proclaiming in principle that God speaks to the inner mind, that angels and midwayers hover around us contacting the outer mind, but that as a general rule we are mostly unconscious of all this. The Teaching Mission offers facilitators of these communications.
?But again, I want to emphasize the criterion that I am recommending that we use to separate the revelatory wheat from the chaff:
?That which can be regarded as “from the midwayers”, “from the Melchizadeks”, or “from God” must be 99+% true, good and beautiful over time and without lapses – uniformly excellent. Sources that routinely display significantly less than this level of truth, beauty and goodness should be regarded as of partially human origin. They should not be afforded that respect which is reserved for truly “divine” revelation. In short, Divine Revelation must be divine. It can not claim to be authoritative unless it maintains over time and events a qualitatively higher level of truth, beauty and goodness than is characteristically human. I submit that the Urantia Book does this but that the TM has not.
?If it were true that whenever channeler X opened their mouth, that spiritual truth would inevitably be forthcoming, delivered with superhuman perspective and quality, with never a lapse, then perhaps we had better start taping the output! But so far, what we have is well within the range of human capablities. I can not say the same for the Urantia Book, which seems to me to be beyond the range of human capabilities. He who would rightly claim to be a true channeler of divine revelation must be nothing short of an Oracle.
?David – Put me down on the side that believes spiritual reality is directly contactable by us humans, just that we can”t perceive the intervening morontia that we also make contact with on all levels – at least while we are having our first life.
?Nancy Johnson – Thank you so much for pointing us to those very succinct and clear Urantia Book expositions on the male-female issue, which is so often a trouble spot. I also commend your statement that using “his or her” and other awkward linguistic compromises just emphasizes a false difference between males and females rather than our sameness where these matters are concerned.
?Phil Calabrese ——-
20 Apr 1993 ???leo elliott ???????????Minor refinements
Subject: Minor refinements
?Albemarle County, VA April 20, 1993
?Good morning Logondonters,
?Phil, thanks for your responses. I would offer a minor distinction from my original musings about “what”s missing” — the “what”s missing?” was directed at “what”s missing in our culture, in Christianity, in the Urantia ”movement”” rather than, as you put it, “what”s missing in Urantia Book readers?”
?This is probably a minor refinement, but it would seem that humans find it easier firstly to speak about what”s missing out there rather than what”s missing in here, and secondly, I suspect that, as a collective group of humans, UB readers probably have just as replete an inventory of character flaws and “personality disorders” as the population at large, from what I”ve seen and met over the last two decades, folks with addictions and abuses of all sorts as part of their psychological profiles. — This is not to say that there are not some rather marvelous similarities in the spiritual-seekers who come to the UB as well!
?What I was getting at is like, you know how there are certain “receptor cells” (is that what they are called?) in the human brain, that may be uniquely fitted so as to receive just some particular molecule, (I have heard that this is the case for opium?), well, it seems like despite the diversity of background and profile of all these readers, the Urantia Book itself seems to have filled some void or gap (so in this sense you do well to remind us of what is missing _in us_), or perhaps to have acted as some sort of catalytic agent to all these diverse individuals” personal and spiritual growth, in extraordinary ways.
?What I was attempting to focus on was the TM _as a socio-religious movement_ and inquire as to what “missing ingredients” it seems to be offering to individual readers, that they have not been finding in study groups heretofore. Your response that what the TM is offering is “the promise of a clearer, quicker ”channel” to knowing God”s will, or at least the will of God”s higher beings” deserves further scrutiny; since I am only observing here from the perspective of a political scientist and literary critic, I would have to say that from the transcripts I”ve read, (which again I now read more as a form of group-generated spiritually-oriented literature with mythic references to the frame of the UB, than as divine revelation), I certainly see revealed in the questionings of the participants this age-old desire to get a “pipeline to God” (to borrow a phrase from Harold Sherman!), but at least in the limited number of transcripts I”ve studied, there does seem some reluctance on the part of the alleged celestial teachers to giving out opinions on which school to send the kids to or other more mundane affairs. Perhaps the process has deteriorated, as Bob Buselli seemed to indicate to me in our conversation of a few weeks ago, and such queries are now being feilded; I am not in a position to be able to comment further, save to say that from what I”ve read, the alleged teachers seem to be countering rather directly the ancient human inadequacy syndrome, from which deriveth the doctrine of original sin, that says that “I can”t DO the will of God until I KNOW, and KNOW FOR SURE, the will of God (and since it”s all such a vague process to begin with, I”m better off letting the authorities decide for me anyway, at least then I”ll be safe!”)
?It would seem that the more the conversation focuses around the product rather than the process of the TM, then the more we will go round and round about what are the better criteria for distinguishing divine revelation from the upwellings of the human mind — which discussion is certainly not without merit, but one that seems to admit of little resolution given the subjective nature of the validation process, i.e., what one human accepts as ”divine intervention” or ”angelic assistance” seems better suited to a discussion based on anecdotal rather than analytical criteria. However we do seem to be an argumentative and contentious (and at times judgmental) lot, so I would not expect this type of conversation to cease any time soon.
?My thought was more to the socialization of the teachings of the UB, and how this arena of discussion might be where we, as analytical isolate-the- component-parts type of thinkers, could review now several decades of such efforts by UB-related groups, to see whence cometh this sudden upsurge in interest in these TM groups, if indeed the swelling numbers of readers involved is factual and not a PR ploy on the part of the enthusiasts. I have only my letter from Ted Blaney, whom I trust implicitly, in this regard, which letter I posted here some weeks ago — in it he spoke of his study group in Cincinnati, which used to consider themselves lucky if they got 10 or 12 to come for reading, was now filling their meeting hall with over 40, and growing. Whether this has continued I haven”t heard.
?Also, I begin to wonder if, just as there _might_ be some sort of optimum land-man ratio for purposes of providing stable and renewable material resource development and utilization, so might there be some sort of optimum study group size, or book-reader ratio, for purposes of providing whatever it is readers are seeking in attending as study group and/or a TM group. Maybe an optimum reading-discussion ratio, or mind-heart ratio?
?Just a rational guy,
20 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????From Jim McNelly: Soul purpose
Subject: From Jim McNelly: Soul purpose
?This is a note to say that I am working on a new paper on “Soul Consciousness” which was triggered by David Kantor”s message of last week asking for elaboration on the subject. I am going to take my premise from “Universe Romancing” that soul consciousness is activated and powered by the “questioning” force and elaborate. But in doing a soul search on Electrantia and reviewing the 493 entries, I found an interesting thread that I had not given much thought to previously. As I continue developing the soul theme, I put hereby the idea out for discussion.
?The issue is one of “identity”. I read that the personality has no identity. That the Thought Adjuster has “pre-personal” identity. And that our personality has the option of aligning itself with either the material identity (life and mind) or the soul identity. I also read that the Adjuster is the Father to the soul and our personality is the Mother, implying that the mind is the womb. This suggests the soul is a child, a replication of the experiential trinity akin to the emergence of the Supreme. Perhaps as the Father lives again in us, we live again in the soul? The escape from infinity and the escape from finity find harmony and eternal life without nagging divinity tension in the child of morontia.
?Perhaps someone wiser than I could provide a discourse on the difference between personality, ego, identity, selfhood, name, I AM, soul, mind, Adjuster, cosmic mind, Supreme, or other related subjects. If this is too much, perhaps just some observations on the difference between personality and identity would suffice.
?Time out, recess, table discussion on the TM for a while?! Anyone taking a video to the Mac appearance? I”m sending my astral body. It sure beats air fare.
?I”m reminded of the Cowardly Lion outside the witches castle. “I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks.”
20 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Pop Fly to McNelly
Subject: Pop Fly to McNelly
?Good Morning, Logondonters….
?So many excellent posts flashing by — I hope to have time to answer later in the week.
?Jim McNelly, I”m glad to see you pursuing the soul issue; I have been doing this also as well as looking into the spiritual/morontial issue more deeply as well as our thread on idealism/ideaism. Your comment requesting a discourse on the “difference between personality, ego, identity, selfhood, name, I AM, soul, mind, etc…” is a *BIG* request and underscores our ignorance of some basic underlying concepts in our cosmology — our work is cut out for us.
?This post is to let you know that I have a 30 page paper hand-typed by a former forum-ite which is a comprehensive study on the nature of the soul. I don”t have time to type it in and post it, but if you”re interested post your mailing address and I”ll send you a copy. It is *very* comprehensive, has some things in it which I consider to be errors or oversights, but it is the best I”ve seen. Ditto for anyone else who is interested. I recently posted a paper on the use of capital letters in the UB but didn”t get any response so I”m not sure what the level of interest is in this stuff.
20 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????From J.McNelly: Quotes on Fait
Subject: From J.McNelly: Quotes on Faith and Belief
?I haven”t seen any net rules on posting quotes, but here is another series on faith and belief I recently posted on Prodigy.
?Page-1105 The highest religious experience is not dependent on prior acts of belief, tradition, and authority; neither is religion the offspring of sublime feelings and purely mystical emotions. It is, rather, a profoundly deep and actual experience of spiritual communion with the spirit influences resident within the human mind, and as far as such an experience is definable in terms of psychology, it is simply the experience of experiencing the reality of believing in God as the reality of such a purely personal experience.
?Page-1114 Belief has attained the level of faith when it motivates life and shapes the mode of living. The acceptance of a teaching as true is not faith; that is mere belief. Neither is certainty nor conviction faith. A state of mind attains to faith levels only when it actually dominates the mode of living. Faith is a living attribute of genuine personal religious experience. One believes truth, admires beauty, and reverences goodness, but does not worship them; such an attitude of saving faith is centered on God alone, who is all of these personified and infinitely more.
?Page-1114 Belief is always limiting and binding; faith is expanding and releasing. Belief fixates, faith liberates. But living religious faith is more than the association of noble beliefs; it is more than an exalted system of philosophy; it is a living experience concerned with spiritual meanings, divine ideals, and supreme values; it is God-knowing and man-serving. Beliefs may become group possessions, but faith must be personal. Theologic beliefs can be suggested to a group, but faith can rise up only in the heart of the individual religionist.
?Page-1124 Faith transforms the philosophic God of probability into the saving God of certainty in the personal religious experience. Skepticism may challenge the theories of theology, but confidence in the dependability of personal experience affirms the truth of that belief which has grown into faith.
?Page-1731 Your religion shall change from the mere intellectual belief in traditional authority to the actual experience of that living faith which is able to grasp the reality of God and all that relates to the divine spirit of the Father. The religion of the mind ties you hopelessly to the past; the religion of the spirit consists in progressive revelation and ever beckons you on toward higher and holier achievements in spiritual ideals and eternal realities.
?Page-2087 Theology may fix, formulate, define, and dogmatize faith, but in the human life of Jesus faith was personal, living, original, spontaneous, and purely spiritual. This faith was not reverence for tradition nor a mere intellectual belief which he held as a sacred creed, but rather a sublime experience and a profound conviction which securely held him. His faith was so real and all-encompassing that it absolutely swept away any spiritual doubts and effectively destroyed every conflicting desire. Nothing was able to tear him away from the spiritual anchorage of this fervent, sublime, and undaunted faith. Even in the face of apparent defeat or in the throes of disappointment and threatening despair, he calmly stood in the divine presence free from fear and fully conscious of spiritual invincibility. Jesus enjoyed the invigorating assurance of the possession of unflinching faith, and in each of life”s trying situations he unfailingly exhibited an unquestioning loyalty to the Father”s will. And this superb faith was undaunted even by the cruel and crushing threat of an ignominious death.
?Here are some quotes I posted on Prodigy recently.
?Some quotes from the Urantia Book on intolerance Page-1012
?Page-1012 New religions cannot be invented; they are either evolved, or else they are suddenly revealed. All new evolutionary religions are merely advancing expressions of the old beliefs, new adaptations and adjustments. Primitive religion was very democratic; the savage was quick to borrow or lend. Only with revealed religion did autocratic and intolerant theologic egotism appear. Page-1555 There was another side to John that one would not expect to find in this quiet and introspective type. He was somewhat bigoted and inordinately intolerant. In this respect he and James were much alike–they both wanted to call down fire from heaven on the heads of the disrespectful Samaritans. When John encountered some strangers teaching in Jesus” name, he promptly forbade them. But he was not the only one of the twelve who was tainted with this kind of self-esteem and superiority consciousness. Page-1955 “Once we called you and your brother sons of thunder. You started out with us strong-minded and intolerant, but you have changed much since you wanted me to call fire down upon the heads of ignorant and thoughtless unbelievers. And you must change yet more. You should become the apostle of the new commandment which I have this night given you. Dedicate your life to teaching your brethren how to love one another, even as I have loved you.” Page-803 Much as it is to be regretted, national egotism has been essential to social survival. The chosen people doctrine has been a prime factor in tribal welding and nation building right on down to modern times. But no state can attain ideal levels of functioning until every form of intolerance is mastered; it is everlastingly inimical to human progress. And intolerance is best combated by the co-ordination of science, commerce, play, and religion. Page-969 In olden times the fetish word of authority was a fear-inspiring doctrine, the most terrible of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance, and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties. Modern respect for wisdom and truth is but the recent escape from the fetish-making tendency up to the higher levels of thinking and reasoning. Concerning the accumulated fetish writings which various religionists hold as sacred books, it is not only believed that what is in the book is true, but also that every truth is contained in the book. If one of these sacred books happens to speak of the earth as being flat, then, for long generations, otherwise sane men and women will refuse to accept positive evidence that the planet is round. Page-1114 Faith has falsified its trust when it presumes to deny realities and to confer upon its devotees assumed knowledge. Faith is a traitor when it fosters betrayal of intellectual integrity and belittles loyalty to supreme values and divine ideals. Faith never shuns the problem-solving duty of mortal living. Living faith does not foster bigotry, persecution, or intolerance.
20 Apr 1993 ???Philip Calabrese ?????Minor refinements revisited
Subject: Minor refinements revisited
?——- Dear Logondonters,
?Leo – My comments with respect to what the TM offers apply to non-Urantia Book readers too, except those who don”t have a strong sense of personal religious experience, which would seem to be the necessary “receptor cell” in the brain.
?Furthermore, nuts and bolts questions are always a distraction, no less to the TM agenda than any agenda, but the fact that the “teachers” are generally not fielding such questions doesn”t provide me with much if any assurance of the validity of their overall claims.
?As for study groups growing much more after the TM is introduced, so too did the message of the Apostles greatly expand the number of followers of Jesus after the apostles changed the message from the one that Jesus had taught them to preach. Jesus could also have awed the people and gathered many more people than he did. So again, such is not the stuff by which to discriminate the truth from partial error.
21 Apr 1993 ???Sara L. Blackstock ???Guilt & Intuition
Subject: Guilt & Intuition
?Hello, Logondonters. . .
?Nancy, I would like to address some of the points in yourcommunication (Nancy J to David K on TM) sent Apr 19. David Kantordoes not need my defense on his behalf so rather than see the following as that, please accept it as my experience with the FOG happenings.
?David and I participated in receiving messages from”others”, I for 3 months and David for about 1 month before the downfall of FOG.
?Guilt and “forgiving oneself” do not fit into the picture forme. I too, felt partially responsible for what I and others had caused to happen at FOG. Had I been better educated, as I have said before, regarding basic principles of psychology, I do not think that my mind, which was in conflict, would have created the drama of communicating with spiritual beings. The dictionary definition of guilt is the feeling which comes after “consciously committing an offense”. I, nor did David, will, consciously, to begin getting “messages”. It is hard to feel guilty when one has not chosen to do something. I have spent the last 7 years consciously attempting to understand what happened to me, through grieving, friendship, prayer, education and love. It was anextremely humbling experience to be so sure of something, as tocause 40 or so people to go down into a shelter to wait for nuclear war (AND NO, I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE ARE ANY SIMILARITIES WITHTHE WACO TRAGEDY). My self respect was shaken and has been slowly restored by my own spiritual connections, friends, hard work in thereal world, and my desire to live a normal life. I do not think that it is living a normal life on this planet, nor perhaps on moreadvanced planets, to be in constant or even sporadic CONSCIOUS communication with higher spiritual beings. To think so seem experientially to be extremely presumptuous.
?h)0*0*0* i I also have trouble with the way ACIM portrays guilt “the sneakiest ego trick of them all”. That seems much different than what the UB says about guilt: “The possibility of the recognition of the sense of guilt is a badge of transcendent distinction for mankind. It does not mark man as mean but rather sets him apart as a creature of potential greatness and ever ascending glory. Such a sense of unworthiness is the initial stimulus that should lead quickly and surely to those faith conquests which translate the mortal mind to the superb levels of moral nobility, cosmic insight,and spiritual living; thus are all the meanings of human existence changed from the temporal to the eternal, and all values are elevated from the human to the divine.” (p984)
?A LITTLE MORE ON THE SIMILARITIES/DISSIMILARITIES OF FOG AND TM
?One of the similarities with FOG and TM is sincerity we were very sincere, as are people into TM. We were seeking God”s will, praying and worshiping with everything we had. We really did want to believe that what we were doing was the right way, but we were by passing logic, as I think are people into TM. It was not logical to think that a little special group would be called on to participate with the spiritual government to save others during a nuclear war. It is not logical that many have been told through TM messages that the war was stopped just minutes before it was about to happen. There is no evidence to indicate that this was so in 1985, although Duane Faw will differ with this assessment. Nor is it logical to believe that people should be called upon just because they are into this revelation, with almost no other credentials to offer for what we have done for this planet. We are basically such little people, with big hearts, and massive over imaginations.
?The BIG people on this planet have not shown much interest in this revelation and many have been shown it. With the horrendous human suffering and drastically changing situations happening on this planet, do you really think that it is logical that the spiritual government is sending higher spiritual beings to “teach” something which we already know, but are too lazy, scared, or busy with other things to really be effective?
?I believe that WWIII was as much a figment of collective imaginations who thought they had a special mission, maybe even”reservists” as the TM is, but I do not discount all that is happening in TM as bologna sandwiches rotting in the gutter David really!?!
??Is it possible that these TM experiences are a psychological scaffolding which will lead those involved into more dynamic realms of service? Out of the nightmares of the primitives came the first “other” awareness; from alchemy came chemistry; from astrology came astronomy and from war has come peace. (Thank you Steve Drier) From the TM channeling will come ….????
21 Apr 1993 ???Byron Belitsos ?????Intimations of infinity
Subject: Intimations of infinity
?Let”s see, 50 Urantial messages behind and about to leave for Chicago for “The Event”. It”s after midnight again, prime time for Urantial, and I”m provoked and stimulated (no sexual pun intended) by the latest from David and all of y”alls” thoughtful musings, and there are eight or nine threads to which I would like to respond….from polite mini-bios for Martin Myers, to Leo”s brilliant discussion of the role of imagination in the quest to add meaning to value…ah…intimations of the infinity of it all…oh here, David has complimented my spelling, and there, a ”poof” appearance of Machiventa will not suffice….female intuition is said to fail again, but recovers…a call for online channeling, perhaps a new form of “jacking in” (see William Gibson), which was also the subject of an aborted novel I started once (the celestials appear in three dimensional cyberspace to give teachings to hackers, who then relay it to the world)…
?….Let”s take out this minute to worship our Father who confers the possibility of spiritual unity on us through the uniformity of distribution of TAs to all Urantians……
?…..may I submit, in very partial reply to Phil Calabrese, a name I am delighted to see online herein, a scenario, and this would begin with….
?Phase 1: UBers begin as intellectual custodians of a printed-word revelation, using said textbook to create new conceptual capacity as well as universe orientation, or the mind-vision of a God-centered universe (a concept articulated well by Jim McNelly), but creating a confused and very imperfect movement too often dominated by non-spiritual trends (lack of philosophical courage to choose a a specific purpose for its activity — read the Fellowship constitution; political power-brokering in the elite of the Fellowship; a sordid legalism at the center treacherously endeavoring to restrain the very sale of books; thin ranks of demoralized study-group members without worthy religious leadership; atomized readers sprinkled about here and there merrily and quite legitimately pursuing isolated and individual forms of soul development, while the rest of the world languishes in confusion worst confounded, some going up in flames of their own apocalyptic vision, an apt metaphor for a planet in real peril of calamity).
?Now this state of affairs within the reader-custodianship breaks down, and the intellectual custodians of revelation begin to realize they have been cast downward out of the heaven of their haughty idealism, for in their pride they fantasized that they could “manage the revelation” unaided by the original revelators, the Authors — no, revelation”s buck stopped here with us, and we will trademark it and committee it and study-group it and intellectualize it for the foreseeable decades, forgetting the need for a higher and global vision of soul salvation and outreach to the far ends of the earth. Indeed, the planet is nearing a triple-default as far as epochal revelations were concerned, but yet, as has been said, “the Teaching Mission or something like it is not necessary.”
?Now friends, and Phil, what is YOUR vision, what is phase 2 and phase 3?
?And would you care to compare that vision with that of the Teachers (through my humble attempts to present herein, after I return from Chicago), or should we follow Jim McNelly”s recent request and let the TM discussion go for now? I am detached, as I am happily basking in the grace of the love being showered on us by Michael and our Teachers — I would only like to share the invitation to participate, to “come and see”. It may indeed be a mistake to turn this arena into a forum of missionary advocacy, and I will respect your preferences in this matter.
?And — would you like a report from me about the “Materialization Event”, or has it all become too surreal for now?
?Thanks all for indulging my late-night glibness and David forgive me for dropping our earlier dialogue, which seems played out: you have missed most of my points and I have probably missed most of yours….
?Looking forward to your next 50 messages….I am your cyberbrother,
21 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Quick Response to Sara
Subject: Quick Response to Sara
?Good to see you getting your thoughts on the net; I thought my comment on intuition might stimulate you to spend a little time at your keyboard….
?I appreciate your comment about not using quotes to simply reinforce our pet prejudices or theories. I also appreciate your fuller presentation of “intuition”. However, I will also point out that Nancy said that her “female intuition” led her to believe something to be true about my inner psychological life. This was neither an exercise of “moral” intuition nor “spiritual” intuition. My response to her was based on my “intuition” (we men have intuition too, you know) that her use of the word was in lieu of really thinking about what she was saying, and was used to mean “jumping to conclusions” or “making a wild guess”.
?Incidentally, the kind of intuition described under the heading of “The Spirit of Intuition” seems to me to be a basic survival mechanism probably enhanced for the protection of offspring.
?You”re right, the baloney sandwich was pretty crude, but I”ll let it stand — it”s got a lot of metaphoric possibilities in terms of the attempt to combine baloney with the bread of life….
?In an earlier post I made a comment about spending five years dealing with the phenomenon of being a “contact” person and dealing with the repercussions of that event. You questioned me about this and I wanted to clarify, for the record, that the actual period of supposed “contacts” was relatively short. Most of that five year period was spent in dealing with the personal and social repercussions, and coming to an understanding of the phenomena.
?While it”s great to be able to share electronic space with someone as physically far away as Finland hereon, it is also nice so share ideas with a friend who is just across town…I look forward to your continued participation and contributions, Sara.
21 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????The Alpha and the Omega
Subject: The Alpha and the Omega
?Greetings Everyone, From page 2097, the last page of the UB: ******* “Be not discouraged; human evolution is still in progress, and the revelation of God to the world, in and through Jesus, shall not fail.
?The great challenge to modern man is to achieve better communication with the divine Monitor that dwells within the human mind. Man”s greatest adventure in the flesh consists in the well-balanced and sane effort to advance the borders of self-consciousness out through the dim realms of embryonic soul-consciousness in a wholehearted effort to reach the borderland of spirit-consciousness — contact with the divine presence.” ———————————————————————— My brother David Kantor, the above excerpt is my reply to your question: “The quote you mention from page 1778 is interesting indeed, particular- ly the phrase “…thus becoming free to attain consciousness of the higher currents of spirit concept and celestial communication…” Can you find any other quotes which elaborate on this so as to enhance it”s meaning?”..David, you must have strong reasons to be ”more than a little suspicious of the Rodan papers,” but I care not to second quess the wisdom of the Midwayer Commission authors — I feel certain that they knew – and still know – exactly what they are talking about. Notice that the quote from page 2097 does not talk of some future generation of men, but modern man – us. It says our greatest adventure, here in the flesh, is to stretch the self-perceived limits of our mind – our “embryonic soul-consciousness” – in an effort to reach the borderland of the spirit world. You mention twice that you doubt your ”philosophical skill” in undertaking a reconciliation between the ideas of Rodan and those of Jesus. The excerpt with which I began this post confirms to me the quote from the Rodan paper. I can only wonder why you feel that any large amount of intellectual and philosophical effort is required. Moreover, in order to accept man”s “great challenge” what is required is not thinking. We are told in the UB that *faith* is the requirement for personality survival – to enter the ”Kingdom of God.” And to perceive the will of God, and advance the borders of our consciousness, communion with the Father -worship- is the most powerful activity in which we can possibly engage. Communion with the Father”s presence transforms our mortal attributes into everlasting attributes of being; not intellectual or philosophic effort. To be fair, you have not ever said in so many words that thinking replaces faith or worship – however, what you have done is consistently exhorted the need for increased philosophic under- standing before we accept our own or our fellows reports of adventures. Is this not similar to Nalda”s first two responses to the Master? You have consistently claimed that those individuals striving to advance the boundaries of their soul-consciousness are entirely lacking in any philosophic foundation…that they are self-deluded and practicing an activity you characterize as ”spiritual masturbation.” You are in a very literal sense judging the private and intimate efforts of others in their wholehearted efforts to contact the divine presence. I cannot imagine how you can presume to be in a position to evaluate the private relationship between any mortal (beside yourself) and God nor how such assessments on your part are contributing constructively to our social interpretation of the substantial amount of claimed contact activity. But then if such comments spur those of us who are hesitant to ”defend the truth,” it is arguable that they are serving an important purpose. I realize that the proffer of transcripts purporting to be resultant of contact with celestials does change the situation to some degree, but the individuals involved have been coaxed to share the texts due to their high degree of truth content. Much of it is truth that is substantiated by the UB. [BTW, your question to Byron of how to reconcile the excerpt of text from a Melchizedek which you posited is conveniently skewed for you left out the sentence following “[The Urantia Book] is not relevant to our mission.” which is “[The Urantia Book] is not irrelevant to our mission.” Let”s be fair.] So you would probably say that you would never presume to judge another”s worship of the Father. But I would say to you that even if these texts have come to us from the minds of mortals and are not verbatim celestial expressions that they are still having a transforming effect upon those who read them – the lives of many individuals are being spiritually uplifted and moreover they are drawing others to the Father. If they are of the human mind they are still a vast improvement over the hyper-intellectual expressions of most of us…including myself. If we are to know of the truth of this activity (the TM) by its fruits, then simply listen to your brothers and sisters. For the acutalization of spiritual contact — living proof — abounds and is gaining resonance across the globe. However, I contend that the majority of transcripts are just what they claim to be – contact with supernals. Sure they lack the heavily re-written style we”re accustomed to in the UB – and surely the TM texts are dependent upon the specific human”s lexicon and conceptual grasp of reality. I”m glad, for if the supernals were to offer doctoral level material for us kindergardeners, we would be clueless indeed. Later on Sonday, David, when you wrote your post [“Of Spiritual Data Buffers” 4-18-93], I had a most amazing conversation with two very sincere truth seekers, such as yourself and the others gathered virtually here on urantial. Elisha and Marcus, have been in communica- tion with celestials for several years; confirmation for them and the individuals they have interacted with have been countless in ways small and large as well, more importantly, by the fruits of their efforts. After several hours, and before we initiated any type of t/r contact, I began presenting your position, as best and as fairly as I could, to the two individuals before me. I told them of your dedication to God, your brothers and sisters and to the UB; I made every effort to represent your perspective and your feelings about the TM just as if you were there with us. It was not an easy thing for me to do; the notion that the loving words that have become so dear to me were the product of mass hysteria tore at my heart and was difficult to express without emotion. I told them of my love for you, as a brother. My portrayal of your position became so earnest, and I was so obviously hurt inside over the conflict, that they wondered why I was so concerned – ”just let it go.” I explained to them that you – and the others here on this list and else where – who could not accept the TM were dear to me for it was my task as I saw it to counter your forceful arguments so that those listening and still trying to make up their minds would at least hear my voice upholding what I see as truth. I told them I knew that the truth needed no defense – just like the UB or any other truth – and that the argu- mentative defense of any proposition was inversely related to the content of the truth involved. We all agreed that once the notion of the reality of the TM was accepted by your mind and other naysayers, that this current and living expression of Michael”s mission for Urantia would have no greater servants. We were interrupted during our conver- sation – Elisha became introspective for a half minute or so and said: “Michael said that he did not defend himself to his accusers, and he will not defend himself now.” A bit later our small group of four (myself, my best friend in the world who is now quite interested in more than occasional reading of the UB, plus our gracious hosts, Elisha and Marcus) had 2 hour-long sessions with Michael, our Creator Parent. Elisha took her time and spoke each word after she had insured its correctness before she continued to the next one – about 5 seconds or so between words; Marcus receives simul- taneously and acted as a verifier; they do this for each other as they wish. This event is indeed one in which words and symbols fail to convey to you – to you all – the experience. Behold the Man! He is so outstandingly gracious, so loving and tender with his little ones – so compassionate that this child could not help but shed many tears. I wish I could find the words – for it was a supreme honor for me to be in his presence for so long; he assures me that he is with us all just so close at all times. He assured me that his mission will not fail. Do not expect a materialization on the 24th. Faith will be required by all; the faith requirement will not be superceded yet by an outward manifestation. Those who need verification will be put through series of tests and challenges for that is the nature of spiritual realities: first comes faith – then the reality is revealed. The supernals will not acquiesce to our human need for confirmation by outward sign. Those who need an external verification before they will believe will have the right to so demand as long as they desire. Michael and his teachers want those mortal sons and daughters of unflinching faith – just as they ask of the apostles – those who are willing, without physical evidence, to lead others to God — agondonters -not doubters. Who is testing whom? David, I would have to say to you in reference to your statement: “…But by and large, I think that culture and symbols are the big deal, the limiting factors which keep us from bringing the spiritual into the domains of human culture. Jesus” teachings about the Kingdom really speak to me here.” Yeah, verily my suspicious and doubting brother. Listen to the Master. *First you must have faith!* On a personal as well as a social level *a living faith* is the transformer. No enriching of human culture by art, philosophy, symbols or intellectual analysis will ever have so much transforming power as faith in the unfolding of God”s Love in and through the His Son, the Master, Christ Michael. The quote on page 638 may be a key: “Mind is the indispensable channel of communication between spiritual and material realities.” It seems that *stilling* the mindal currents instead of fueling the chatter may prove to be what enables us to “conceive and comprehend the indwelling spirit” – just the opposite of what we might “think” !! And lastly, you think that if the quarantine were lifted that spiritual pressure – an enhanced ministry – “would not take the form of discrete messages to specific individuals” …”but on the whole” …. I say just like the cell is the building block of the body, the individ- ual mortal is the building block of humanity. All individuals are to be included, but pressure cannot take place in any other form than pressure upon the discrete living units – individual mortals. It is within each of us individually that aspects of eternal value exist, that spirit exists, that Jesus exists, that God exists. No speculation is required. Just love and faith. Life is a voluntary free-will adventure; so is our faith, as is our acceptance of the UB and other truth, so is our willful acceptance of the Father”s love…and so is our relation to Michael”s mission to uplift Urantia from the darkness of its history. David, your thoughts are well expressed and well reasoned. It challenges my mind to present you with a worthy counter in rationality. You have caused me to strive to understand myself and all life in ways which I have never before conceived. I owe you much; I have the highest respect and regards for you. I am very grateful to you all for the mutual sharing and patience each and every one of you exhibits. This child is honored to participate herein. My heart is not in the least confused or concerned about these mind-numbing efforts. It just knows. Much love to you one and all…. In brotherhood, Michael M PS: Welcome Thea Hardy! Greetings to *All* in your study group.
21 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Quick Resp to Leo and Michael
Subject: Quick Resp to Leo and Michael M
?Good Morning, Logondonters…
?Morning posts for breakfast, mmmmmmm….yum!
?Yeah, Leo, I have a pretty mechanistic view of what it means to be a human being. I see myself, as I have said before, as a virtual reality machine, a life-simulator, a bio-mechanical device locked into a stimulus-response relationship with a material world. The only salvation from this state is a pursuit of the will of God — this is the *only* non-mechanical, non-antecedentally determined choice which I can possibly make. Such a choice will lead to a grasp of spiritual values and ideals which can further the process of salvation from “the mechanical clutch of the material world”. Human culture and civilization can either hold us fully in its grip, or it can be evolved, by the application of spiritual ideals and values to daily living, into a context which facilitates the transcendence by the “mechanism” of its environment. Such “transcendence” means that the mechanism is enabled to function relative to spiritual ideals and values, rather than mechanical relationships to material reality. Such living would truly begin to transform human culture into a manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven.
?While I don”t intend the above to change your view, does it clarify mine?
?Michael Million, your ideas are eloquently expressed and pose a good challenge for me, not a challenge to intellectually counter your position, but a challenge in terms of integrating your experience and ideas with those which I find to be meaningful and real.
?One of the weak areas in my communication skills is the use of words and terms which are far stronger in the response they evoke in the reader than is desirable for effective communication of ideas. Rather than make a simple point, I tend to do a drive-by shooting and come back later to talk with the survivors. Being aware of one”s weaknesses does not always make it easy to get beyond them, but I recognize the need to be less strident with my imagery and can only say that I am working on it. So let me clarify a couple of things.
?My use of the term “suspicious” in reference to the Rodan papers should not be interpreted to imply some sort of paranoia, merely a subtle thought that there is more here than overtly meets the mind. What Rodan says resonates well with me. I could accept everything e says, as well as everything else the UB says, and still be “suspicious” that there is more to be gained by doing some analytical comparison. These papers are interesting because they contain a fairly replete philosophy of living right there in the midst of the UB. Are they given as an example? As a tutorial? I”m merely saying that there is something going on here, some apparent intent on the part of the authors which I have not been able to identify.
?Neither is it accurate to describe me as having “doubts” about the TM. The TM is something which I have no doubts about whatsoever. I feel that I have a very good understanding of just what it is and what it is about.
?I have no interest in dissuading you from your chosen position. But let me add some thoughts for sake of discussion and “for the record.” I feel that much of your communications contain broad generalities which, taken as generalities are true. But when broken down into their components become more problematic. You also seem to mix understandings derived from a study of the UB with very different concepts taken from elsewhere.
?For example, in an earlier post (a copy of which I no longer have) you made reference to the “illusion of artificial partitions of consciousness.” This is a popular idea in contemporary thinking about consciousness, particularly in new age writings and in holistic psychology. However, this is very different from the impression I get about consciousness from the UB. Page 285 refers even to angels as being “highly individualized”, page 333 contains an informative discussion of “individualized” fragments of Deity, page 410 talks about “fusion with an individualized fragment…” and page 103 points out that “the mind of man is an individualized circuit….” If you”re basing your ideas on the assumption that we each live in an “artificial partition” of some pantheistic cosmic mind, look a little more deeply into the discussion in the UB.
?I don”t know where you got your statement “Communion with the Father”s presence transforms our mortal attributes into everlasting attributes of being; not intellectual or philosophic effort.” What”s this about? My understanding is that it is action, service and work in the real world which validates our moral choices as being real, and only as a result of this clear validation can the Adjuster create a spiritual counterpart. This is hard work and *not* something which occurs magically via communion with the Adjuster — I think the UB is more than clear about this process of personal growth and development.
?In the subtle-but-critical distinction area, look again at your quote from page 2097 — Michael, I think there is a big difference between “contact with the Divine presence” and a functional interaction with that divine presence on a level of human cultural phenomenon.
?My call for philosophic understanding differs significantly from the ploy utilized by Nalda. She was attempting to deflect a spiritual issue by turning it into a philosophic issue. Such is not my purpose. I fully recognize that the faith experience is preeminent. The experience of seeking and loving God is *first*, *primary* and that of loving and serving our fellows immediately follows. The role of philosophy is to help make this experience accessible to mind, and to help us share it in a culture of human compassion and companionship — we have to symbolize the experience in order to communicate it and in order to develop the tools which will help us facilitate the experience and make it more available to our fellows.
?I cannot sit in judgement on your own personal experience. You are responsible for that and seem to be having your needs adequately met by that which you are pursuing. But I can question the reasons why there are substantial differences reported by individuals purporting to pursue the same realities. I have posted conflicting and off-the-wall excerpts from TM transcripts hereon and they have been simply dismissed by you, Byron, and others with a few words relegating them to misguided individuals. You have missed my point which is, the moment you begin to do that, *YOU* are passing judgement on the reported experience of your fellows.
?Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this as far as I am concerned, but as soon as you say that “this message is valid but that message is not”, you *must* have some criterion for doing so – – you could not, psychologically, have made such a statement without having some criterion for making such a distinction. That criterion *is* your theologic philosophy. Can you describe what your criterion are? The lack of the ability to clearly articulate these criterion, in even the most rudimentarily cohesive way, on the part of those who ascribe to the TM is precisely what I am referring to as a complete lack of philosophic and theologic integrity. The TM advocates remain unable to relate their ideas to the real world in any meaningful way — no philosophy, no science, no theology, no service; merely “feelings” and “intuitions” and “knowings”.
?It remains a very vaporous affair of the mind, indeed, my friend, a hall of mirrors wherein reflections and projections reign supreme.
?Carry on but BE CRITICAL — critical consciousness is a God given tool essential for safe passage; it is not to be discarded by confusing it with doubt. Jesus told us to a) fear not, and to b) that we shall know the truth and the truth will make us free. Doubt is related to lack of faith while critical thinking is related to intellectual integrity.
?In brotherhood and appreciation for your thoughts,
22 Apr 1993 ???David H. Larsen ???Questions of Gender
Subject: Questions of Gender
?Hello to all;
?I was heartened to see the recent postings advocating for redoubling the struggle to liberate human access to the UB from gender oppression. This is of particular concern to me due to a personal experience in which a woman friend who was open to the UB, was abruptly turned off by the heavy patriarchal tone of the URANTIA Foundation”s literature. Certainly, spiritual energy feels all around us, and she is into ACIM so it”s not as though her survival potential has been impaired, but nontheless, what a shame to have a valued friend miss the opportunity to read the book.
?This and the on-going discussion regarding the TM, motivated me to speculate around questions of authenticity by comparing the point of view regarding gender expressed by the Machiventia Melchizedek of the UB with those of the Machiventia Melchizedek of the TM – Welmek Group. This brief piece of folk research springs from the energy I felt when first exposed to the UB; the sensation of familiarity, similar to that which one gets when encountering a previously unread work by a favorite writer. Would a comparison between the two entities capture any of this sense of familiarity, speaking thereby to the question of truth? As Walter Cronkite used to say, “you be the judge”…
?First from UB 564: “The average special physical-sense endowment of human beings is twelve, though the special senses of the three-brained mortals are extended slightly beyond those of the one- and two-brained types; they can see and hear considerably more than the Urantia races. Young are usually born singly, multiple births being the exception, and the family life is fairly uniform on all types of planets. Sex equality prevails on all advanced worlds; male and female are equal in mind endowment and spiritual status. We do not regard a planet as having emerged from barbarism so long as one sex seeks to tyrannize over the other. This feature of creature experience is always greatly improved after the arrival of a Material Son and Daughter. Material Sons vary in height from eight to ten feet, and their bodies glow with the brilliance of radiant light of a violet hue. While material blood circulates through their material bodies, they are also surcharged with divine energy and saturated with celestial light. These Material Sons (the Adams) and Material Daughters (the Eves) are equal to each other, differing only in reproductive nature and in certain chemical endowments. They are equal but differential, male and female–hence complemental–and are designed to serve on almost all assignments in pairs. This is the dispensation of the realization of sex equality. On some planets the male may rule the female; on others the reverse prevails. During this age normal worlds establish full equality of the sexes, this being preliminary to the fuller realization of the ideals of home life. This is the dawn of the golden age of the home. The idea of tribal rule gradually gives way to the dual concept of national life and family life.
?Now, while granted, this passage fails to clarify the question of who does whose laundry, it is nonetheless sufficiently out of the mainstream of the male-dominated theological/intellectual profile of 1933 or 1955, as to argue strongly for non-human orgins 🙂
?Compare the preceeding with this transmission content from the Welmek Group on the day before Thanksgiving (thanks to Michael M. for the file – gender.spi – available from WUA?), attributed to the same Machiventia Melchizedek:
?…I understand deeply the frustrations of the female gender on Urantia, and the struggles they have faced and withstood, indeed are still undergoing. I have no ready answers to many of your questions, nor can I alleviate many of your concerns about the apparent language bias in the revealed writings you have been reading…Always will humans have difficulty translating concepts of a higher order, of a spiritual nature, into the material tongues…You are well aware that God the Father is not a male, nor is the Divine Minister a female. It is in some ways unfortunate that these pronouns were chosen to refer to heavenly beings, for the confusion that this has lent to the mortal races continues to be immeasurable…We, who have contacted personalities on your planet throughout the ages, have often referred to God as the Father, for this has been an accessible term to most individuals given the culture milieu and history of the races. That the father is absent, or frequently invisible to his children on a purely human level, has more closely approximated the concept that humans have of the Almightly. a mother is material, a very real and fleshly presence, while the father visits his love from a distance, and in ways that, while they are no less important, are of a less immediate and sensual nature. This in no way is meant to denigrate the female of the species, nor is it meant to denigrate the sensual or the material, and it is most regrettable that the human race has used the concept of the God as Father to keep women at a spiritual disadvanatage. This is not the case in Reality, as the female of the species is as beloved as is the male, and because God is neither male nor female, God is able to love without regard to gender; is able to understand each unique individual despit the sexual orientation of that human mortal…Change happens often very slowly, and removing gender bias from the language is a concept that must grow from the bottom up. It is the responsibility of humans to change their concepts of human language, and then it will be easier for us to reveal truth in language that is historically accurate. You have been told the truth: God is indeed a loving parent. As you come to experience the love of this Divine parent, and as you continually attempt to learn more about God, and God”s love for all humans, regardless of race or gender, you will creatively begin to see ways to solve these problems. We who are of the spirit work only with spiritual truth. And I do not suggest that material manifestation is any way bad or evil, or base. It just is, it is where you are working in your universe career, and it is an important part of the process of evolution of the person. It is important that you work to liberate your fellows, both materially and spiritually, from hunger and homelessness, from anger and defeat, and from ignorance and spiritual poverty…
?Once again, quite out of the mainstream by 1993 theological/intellectual profile standards, especially when one contemplates the awareness level of the usual spiritual charlatan vis-a-vis male/female issues, where the tendency to maintain a pattern of male-dominated language and conduct is pronounced. David Koresh”s concept of women”s role in the church as that of love slave, is certainly more typical of the slant on the subject typical of an earth-bound cult of religious fanatics than is the above IMHO.
?In my role as humble student, I experience as much of the shudder of spiritual presence and growth from one of these Melchizedeks as the other; a reasonable approach to spiritual truth? Dunno, but it led to one last excercise. I wanted to program the crawl module on my screen saver, with a quote from the UB. I chose an excerpt from Christ”s remarks to the apostles as follows (p. 2057):
?…By the spirit fruits of your lives impel souls to believe the truth that man is a son of God, and that all men are brethern. Remember all I have taught you and the life I have lived among you. My love overshadows you, my spirit will dwell with you, and my peace shall abide upon you. farewell.
?I edited out this piece;
?”believe the truth that man is a son of God, and that all men are brethern.”
?then, rewrote it to this:
?”believe the truth that humanity is an offspring of God, and that all people are kin.”
?It just feels right.
22 Apr 1993 ???Philip Calabrese ?????The Urantia Cult
Subject: The Urantia Cult
?——- Hello Logondonters,
?First of all, hello Peg and welcome to the Urantia Book reading community. I”d be happy to talk to you about the Urantia Book including the topic of Paradise gravity and antigravity. We might send email directly to each other rather than post it for universal consumption.
?On intuition: Sara and David, it might not be obvious to non- mathematicians that intuition plays a very big part in discovering mathematical theorems. Once discovered, logic is used to simplify, clarify and verify those theorems. But attempts to use pure logic to discover mathematical truth are quite barren. Mathematical intuition, an inkling of the result in vague but emotionally potent terms, is essential for knowing (believing) the direction in which to explore with logic, examples and counterexamples, and yes, guessing. After the theorem is discovered, a simple-as-possible, direct-as-possible proof is fashioned, and all the wrong starts (scaffolding) are carefully concealed and discarded. The theorem then looks like it was the product of logic because logic is a large component of the exposition. But most of the process of discovery is not just logical, although it is consistent with logic.
?On the ability to make spiritual contact: As I understand it, morontia is a combination reality, a weaving together of spirit (the warp) and matter (the woof) into a new form of reality. It is not an interface that is pure physical matter on one side and pure spirit on the other, with gradual change from one to the other in between. We seem to operate on all these levels at once at least in our first life here. After arriving on the mansion worlds, we may be restricted to a more linear approach to spiritual reality. (So let”s make spiritual hay while we can.)
?Byron – After giving your account of TM”s notion of the outworking of the 5th Epochal Revelation, you ask ”what is our scenario for the future of the Urantia Movement.” ”How do non-TM enthusiasts see the new emerging cult of Urantia proceeding?”
?First of all, our vision or lack of vision, concerning the future course of the Urantia Movement does not seem to me to be a good argument for the validity of the TM”s claims of divine revelation. The apparent lack of vision on the part of the apostles concerning the outworking of Jesus revelation on Urantia was not a reason to expect the spiritual authorities to make continuous contact with the apostles. After Jesus left, they had only the Spirit of Truth, just as we have, hopefully with better understanding.
?I have no quarrel with the TM and its value to many like yourself, who are obviously mightily and eloquently moved by it, except that, in view of the many apparently erroneous messages from various TM channelers (interspersed with many spiritually edifying ones), I do not see the justification for regarding the TM as more than a human effort to make contact with the spiritual forces and entities that surround us. I respect any attempt to make contact with God and God”s loyal subordinates. The question is whether to regard the results of these worthy efforts as especially successful, especially true, especially valid to be accepted as divine revelation. My criterion for deciding is both qualitative and quantitative: Is the channeled material uniformly excellent? Is it close to 100% true and is it about spiritually important topics? By these criteria, in my opinion, the TM doesn”t rise to the general level of the Urantia Book. By these criteria it would be safer for me to regard the TM messages as of human origin lest I make the blunder of elevating the output of the human mind to the status of divine revelation.
?The sincere and persistent effort, with faith, to make spirit contact is a mighty force that can not fail to do better than half-hearted, faithless efforts occasionally tried. So I can grant the improved clarity of many of the TM “messages” above average human light. But how can I put aside the glaring examples of, let me call them “garbled messages”, that also have “come through”? To say that one must accept them on faith is, I believe, inappropriate. I have faith in God but faith is “always reasonable”, always logical. I am not asked to have faith in contradiction to my God-given reason. I can believe beyond the realm of reason, but not in contradiction to reason.
22 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????Second reply to David Kantor
Subject: Second reply to David Kantor
?Hello Logondonters…One and All! Leo, your posts are stupendous in my estimation; I find myself re-reading them several times and gaining more inspiration and insight each time. I want to address your post, “Dialectical Limitations?” in more detail soon, but first I must address some points raised by David, our most vocal resident DT of the TM. David Kantor, good of you to clarify. I must admit that when you use a word such as ”suspicious” as regards your estimation of the Rodan papers, it”s not immediately obvious to me (and probably others) that you actually mean “merely a subtle thought that there is more here than overtly meets the mind.” With this notion, I agree. However, it would not occur to me to characterize my feelings about the papers as “suspicious” and allow others to decide what I really mean. We have only words to work with here…ascii characters, to be more specific… and I can only suggest that you choose them well to represent your *actual* intent. My dictionary seems to indicate that there is something lacking or wrong with an object or idea under suspicion…seems to be just a matter of you choosing an incorrect word, probably writing too fast as I tend to do; a word which does not really express your intent. Yes, as with many aspects, perspectives and the multiple levels of interpretation of the UB, we have much to learn from the book. Informa- tion is often ”embedded” in the papers, sometimes something is _not_ said, or topically connected clues are intentionally scattered through- out the various papers. We have much to investigate. I believe it is accurate to describe you as having ”doubts” about the TM. In so saying, I do not mean that you are uncertain as to your own beliefs; you do not believe the TM is truly human contact with spiritual beings. That is, you doubt the testimony of your brothers and sisters, indeed – even your own past experience. There is a vast difference here. Doubt seems to work just fine; I am sure that you are convinced and certain as to your own judgement of the situation…and as you say, I have no interest in dissuading you from your chosen position – just realize that ”chosen” _is_ the correct word here. So to the idea that we are involved in a reality in which we are defined as individual beings through the use of ”illusions of artificial partitions of consciousness.” You have added some thoughts about this ”new age” idea, as you call it, which have never been a part of my use of this concept. My usage is rather straightforward. That is, as mortals we cannot, on a regular basis, ”read” with certainty and clarity, each and every thought of our fellow mortals. I see it as a heuristic device. It is a training tool; it is a means of bringing home the underlying interconnection which we all have – our encircuited mindal and spiritual natures. The divine design of our perceptual construction was intended to keep our true and eternal interconnection hidden – out of our immediate recognition…so that we may learn the lessons of our place in the vast family of God by being able to behave without the ”burden” of realizing that each move, every thought *does* effect the universes. Hence, the lessons will be deeply assimilated once the ”light” arrives. So the quotes you reference on pages 285, 333, 410 and 103 are well and good but please unburden yourself from the notion that I may be con- fused by believing in ”some pantheistic cosmic mind” – thanks for the concern, however. I am one of the listmembers who have read the book. Worhips, communion with the Father has transforming abilities. Work with the mind on a daily basis nets us two large fields which do have eternal consequences…our free will ability to make moral decisions and our choice to offer unselfish service to others (and forget about our ego-bound self). I would characterize them as accumulative efforts which, just as you point out, are used by the Adjuster to create our future morontial (or as you put it, spiritual) counterpart. I think it is a matter of semantics here. I see worship – and I think you will find *many* references in the UB if you look again – as literally an action which will alter – transform – our mortal attributes *as* we are engaged in communion. Sure, action, service, hard work, good decisions and so on are important parts of our earthly responsibility and will form the core of our future identity – but as I see it, they are not *immediately transforming* – and thus my point. I would not use your word ”magically” as you have…you are a good word twister…please attempt to understand what I say before you put extra words in my virtual mouth. Which brings up another point you need to think about. It is easy to insert words or twist anothers expressions to fit more conveniently into your arguments. Please try to be as fair as you can be. I have seen, _on other lists_, where some ”smug ones” feel that they can best ”serve” by standing on the sidelines throwing sharp words at the naive and innocent as they offer their often personal and heartfelt posts to the list. You have come close to this tact, but (and very importantly), you have joined the rest of us in offering your personal experiences whereby we all gain. But often problems start by misrepresenting the expressions of others…and then put in a jab or two. Your self- declared ”shotgun” approach comes close to this notion. Your intent will make all the difference; words can make all the difference. No need to be overly harsh in a format where the face-to-face aspects of ”normal” communications cannot be utilized. It is easy to mis- interpret on a virtual forum; do not add to the confusion by twisting words and blasting when gentleness with serve your purpose much more effectively anyway. The more stridently you argue, the less truth is ”suspected” behind your argument. You can do damage by your tone which will long be remembered after the content of the exchange is forgotten. Put your shotgun away. Your accusation of Leo and his bomber approach is not accurate in my assessment – though I know Leo can hold his own. He is trying to respond to your desire to build a mutual philosophy by using your own approach – words and exhange of ideas. What happens when you build from incorrect assumptions about reality, as I think you have done, is that sooner or later, such an scaffolding will come down ”round your ears. I distinctly follow an experiential approach to personal reality; others are examining such a model also. Leo has simply countered, and accommodated, your need to build symbols and intellectual constructs. I feel that pinning spiritual progress on intellectual adventure can be shown to be an artifice and an perhaps an inefficient investment of energies – but I am open to learning and certainly value your perspective, experience and willingness to share. There certainly is a gain in the brotherhood aspect; but why are you so often strident if this is your goal? I have found in life that winning is often actually a case of losing gracefully; *how* you play the game is all important – sound familiar?
?You say re: my quote from page 2097 — “Michael, I think there is a big difference between “contact with the Divine presence” and a func- tional interaction with that divine presence on a level of human cultural phenomenon.” OK, please elaborate on the perceived distinction.
?You write: “The role of philosophy is to help make this experience accessible to mind, and to help us share it in a culture of human compassion and companionship — we have to symbolize the experience in order to communicate it and in order to develop the tools which will help us facilitate the experience and make it more available to our fellows.” [These comments are concerning faith coming first before one”s perception of spiritual realities …and my comment about your pattern of recourse to intellectual constructs as similar to that of Nalda at the well with Jesus.] OK and good! I will not argue with this notion or definition of philosophy…it is just that you are being so selective in your acceptance of your fellows experiences that you are not able to facilitate, or integrate, their adventures other than to call them self-deluded (and worse). You narrow the breadth of potential integration which lessens the value of your efforts. And it could be that just being *nice* will accomplish much with our fellows. The criteria I use for accepting any truth, TM transcripts or whatever, are twofold: first, my personal exercise of my Spirit of Truth – bells ringing in my heart – a feeling of enlarged awareness of the living presence of the Father. Secondly, I use the life of Jesus, Father Michael, as is described in Part IV of the UB; the manner in which he lived among men. When money and guns are in the picture, I walk. When a loving and tolerant attitude is displayed by those claiming to have a ”truth”…I listen; when hate and fear are spread, I walk. Simple, really. Is this clearly articulated? What would you call the Spirit of Truth if not a personal recognition, a ”knowing” – a ”feeling” ?? Why do you feel that such notions are dangerous? You seem to need an authoritative external reference to pin your beliefs upon. It may be that your sympathy for the misled brothers and sisters who lost their life in Waco is a clue; guns and murdering people are not OK are they? Hall of mirrors, your own metaphor, may just be the best clue to your own inner doubts. That may well reflect how you see your experiences – I will not deny you the right to assess you own inner realities – but don”t project your own fears upon others who are doing very well drawing closer to the Father on their own, thank you very much. It may remain a ”very vaporous affair of the mind” for YOU, but it seems clear to the dozens who are coming on-line with our spiritual circuits since even just last week about this time…How can one be critical of another person coming closer to God? Just let it be, my brother. If it is of no value, it will pass; if we are finally on the universal circuits of ascension assistance, thank God! and Michael for the mercy and patience they have with us mortals.
22 Apr 1993 ???Matthew Rapaport ?????????????Spiritual stuff, basic UB, and
Subject: Spiritual stuff, basic UB, and some authenticity please
?David K… >While values and ideals may originate in a spiritual domain, while we >have TA”s who are “of spirit” and while we have ministering angels who >are of origin in “spiritual reality”, I fail to see how we can possibly >interact with “spiritual reality” in a functional way, apart from >integrating spiritual values and ideals into our daily lives.
?Well I don”t disagree with you one bit. I was merely pointing out that there are *sometimes* direct interactions between the spiritual dimention (if you will) and the material. The Paul episode is one example, as was the appearance to Abraham. This does *not* mean that we can choose to interact directly with this [the spiritual] dimention at any time we like. Such interactions, when they do occur, happen at their initiation, not ours. It is precisely because of this that such criticism does not, of itself, auger against the TM. I think you would agree that if members of the planetary government and associates really were ordered to make contact with humans in the manner ascribed to the TM that they *could* do so. I agree with you that this is not what is happening in the case of the TM (personal opinion here), but that doesn”t mean it *couldn”t* happen that way.
?Leo… The tests… Well I can”t find what I wrote back in Feb. or so, but I remember some of it…
?1) Factor a number larger then has ever been factored by our best computers to date (I think 105 digits is the current record).
?2) Break a modern sophisticated cypher. For example take a message (say a page) of text encrypted in RSA or DES and, without knowing the key, translate the message into plain text.
?3) Allow an appearance [I”m thinking of a Jesus-like post resurection appearance here as distinct from a materialization proper] to be photographed and recorded by all manner of sophisticated analytical equipment, e.g., infrared/uv films, and other remote sensing devices.
?4) Permit a genetic analysis of the body of the materialized person (a skin sample [live cells] should be sufficient).
?5) Perform one of the apocryphal Sadler tests: A) have 10 people memorize a few questions, write them down and hand them to a third party. Let the T/R or materialized person answer some number of them without ever being told what they are. B) Retrieve a document from a safe deposit box.
?6) Tell project SETI where and on what frequencies to look for broadcast signals from Salvington or Uversa.
?There may have been a few others, but I did invite people to submit other such possible tests so we could see what kind of list we could provide. No one took my up on it. The idea was to be able to hand either a materialized person, or a regular T/R a list of such tests for which the satisfaction of ANY ONE OR TWO together would be sufficient to verify their credentials (i.e. that they are really supra-humans – celestials).
24 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????comments on the week”s mail
Subject: comments on the week”s mail
?This is all by way of trying once again to make a point about the TM. Michael Million states, “…you do not believe the TM is truly human contact with spiritual beings. That is, you doubt the testimony of your brothers and sisters, indeed — even your own past experience…” This is not a true statement — there are two very different things happening in this statement. I think that those who say they are getting messages *are* in touch with the ministry of their spiritual benefactors. The error, imo, occurs when that experience is assigned a meaning by the mortal mind which places the experience as a phenomena in the stream of human culture and history, thereby robbing it of its true place in the *spiritual* domain. These folks may well be in contact with their spiritual benefactors, but there is no teaching mission as they have described. It is this description which is a fabrication of the human mind — this humanly/socially derived meaning attached to a spiritual experience.
24 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Response to Byron”s Cult Paper
Subject: Response to Byron”s Cult Paper
?Another factor which you mention is the need to “keep the religious group separated from all other groups.” This is a big order because it requires the clear definition of just what constitutes the group, and such definitions tend to violate our sense of religious idealism. (sorry about using the “i” word, Leo.) For example, amongst the followers of the TM, you folks are going to need to have your own organization which essentially allows you to meet without having to have persons such as myself present. Otherwise, you will spend all your time defending your beliefs and will not have an opportunity to develop and pursue a deeper integration of yourselves with what you see as your religious purpose. So such social discrimination (the vile “d” word) is essential for progress and development.
25 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????From Jim McNelly: Rodan
Subject: From Jim McNelly: Rodan
?>To: URANTIAL@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU >Subject: Rodan >From: email@example.com (Jim Mcnelly) >Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA >Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 09:15:29 CDT ]Reply-To: Discussion of _The_Urantia_Book_ [URANTIAL@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>
?Good Morning, Logondonters…
?David”s comments about Rodan have struck a resonate chord with me. When I first read the Book seqentially, it was a sort of dream time musical mantra wilderness chant where every page and word flowed into the next…… until I got to Rodan. My experience was one of slamming on the mental brakes in frustration. For me, Rodan was not at all in the same caliber or quality as the rest of the U papers. My initial reaction was frustration with “how did they let this crap in?”. But I read it anyway with a disdainful attitude that many now experience with the TM papers
?Later readings were not so hostile and I cherish Rodan and his sage advice. I halfway expect him to pop into the Urantial list any day! (G) But it does point out the difference between human thinking and the Morontial mind set of the paradise pattern behind the words in the U Book. It was -very- clear to me that Rodan was not of the same “level”.
?Which leads to the recent Matthew Block studies showing that whole sections of text in the U book are lifted nearly verbatim from writings at the time. Which leads to an interesting supposition, hang in there with me on this one folks I am jumping fast, “will the evaluation of the comparision of the editing of the writings of the early 20th century as compared with the actual text incorporated into the U book give us insight on the nature of the ”restatement into the positive””?
?Look at how Jesus used the ”best” of the old testament to make a point, did not our ghost writers of the U book do the same? What is this discretionary process that enables advanced beings to distill the essence, the ”survival value” out of ordinary human experience and thought? What sifting process was used to select the ”1000 human concepts” that were incorporated into the U book?
?Hold on folks, I”m, not done leaping yet. As Rodan was not fully “screened and restated” as I see it compared to the rest of the U book, is there not an implied consent for us mere mortals to continue to humanize and ”bastardize” (hows that for a gender grenade?) the text? And now to the TM connection, could it not be that the universe romancing of the dialogue process, crude and obviously not of the “U Book” caliber, is akin to the question and answer sessions of 1911 -1933?
?Phew! What a screenful! Summarized, I am suggesting that the recognition of human thought admixed with gems of spirit wisdom is an observation of the way revelation stays in contact with evolution. To test this sense of humanizing of spirit contact, I would like to read the transcripts of the Forum from the 1920s. My hypothesis is that they would read much like the TM transcripts! The neat U Book package was sent to the Universe Editors for morontia restatement via committee, probly with red ink line item editing by the Master himself.
?To expect live contact with spirit forces, Adjuster or whomever, to have the refined quality of the U book I beleive is setting too high a standard of perfection for imperfect beings. What I get out of Rodan, out of the Forum apocrapha, from the TM, and from we Movement intelligencia, is a continuing quest for truth that comes from the ancient quest of the soul, and that all of it will be restated some time in a more perfect summarization, just as we will recall only that which is of survival value when we resurrect on the next world.
?There, I”m done for the moment.
25 Apr 1993 ???Philip Calabrese ?????Re: Response to Byron”s Cult P
Subject: Re: Response to Byron”s Cult Paper In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat Apr 24 11:52:27 1993
?——- To: URANTIAL@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU Subject: On style & substance ——- Dear Logomdonters,
?Thank you David Kantor and Michael Million and Jim McNelly for variously responding to some of what I”ve posted in the last week or so concerning possible criteria for judging “divine revelation” as contrasted from normal human mental output.
?Michael communicated Jim McNelly”s suggestion that the high level of quality of the Urantia Book was perhaps too high a standard to apply to the content of the TM messages, and that perhaps the human Forum questions and the Revelators” answers (during the transmission of the Urantia Book) were similar to the present channeling phenomena of the “Teaching Mission”.
?Concerning the Forum”s questions, there is no need here to judge, their quality. But concerning the Revelators” answers, it is my understanding that the quality was uniformly high, only needing to be adjusted for human interpretation and to add elaboration and depth. It does not seem accurate to claim a close parallel of that kind of refining of an essentially intact and coherent message with the kind of, shall we say “garbled” messages, that in the “Teaching Mission” can come in one week and then must be be completely revered in a subsequent week. Things like Ham”s predicting that Vince Ventola would live and become a great artist, and that his daughter Miranda would be walking by Christmas, and so forth.
?If the best of these TM messages are just more or less enlightened human “revelations” then why is so much emphasis placed upon them as “messages”? Should not the emphasis of a teaching mission be upon the truths rather than upon a portrayal of the truths as communications from on high – especially considering how the messages seem to exhibit such a large human mind content?
?When actual divine visitations are granted to people they are more often than not inclined to keep these experiences personal. Having an encounter with God or an angel or some other heavenly being is hardly ever a signal to start telling everyone about your “heavenly contacts”. The channeling experience as we are witnessing them are essentially public (Even the personal sessions are experiences “facilitated” by the channeler, rather than direct unaided personal revelations and encounters.)
26 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????A Post from Thea Hardy
Subject: A Post from Thea Hardy
?Hi, Fellow Logondonters!
?I am new on this list and looking forward to participating. I have been studying the UB avidly since the summer of 1970. I was dismayed and angry when I first heard of the TM. I didn”t want to see more problems for the Urantia movement than had already occurred in the past. But a persuasive friend saw to it that I had transcripts, and after a lot of prayer and pain and consternation, I kept reading. I did not find something with the same linguistic expertise of the UB, but I found something that my dear big blue book told me never to turn away from, whatever the source – truth. I am not talking about the truth of the origins of the transmissions, of exactly what is going on, of who these beings are – if they are… that truth is for me more metaphoric, if I may put it that way. I am talking about the content of the transmissions. Not all of every transcript is true, obviously, yet there is much truth in most of them. After some initial irritation I found their simplicity refreshing. Back to basics, as it were… and entirely consistent with the basic message of the UB. Since we encouraged by the book to study the religion of others, I felt that at the least, reading this material was letting me see and understand better those who were participating in this peculiar situation.
?My first reaction to the UB was largely skeptical, too. And it was a period of months before I really took to the book, and several years before I came to believe that it was pretty largely true as stated. I prayed a lot about the TM and my reactions to it. When it occurred to me that if it were true, any of us might be called upon to participate as T/Rs, my first reaction was intense: NOT ME!!! Please, God, not me!
?What went through my head was, “What would I have to change? How much would I have to give up? If the Father asked me to do these things, would I be willing? Would we be asked to move to Timbuktoo to serve? Could I handle all the changes?” I examined my motives, my selfishnesses, my reluctances. It was not an easy thing. And I prayed to God that whatever he willed, I would be able to do it. And I meant it. And it was not pain-free or fear-free.
?Some time after that, thoughts came into my mind. Just thoughts. I had never been in the habit of talking to myself as “you” as some people do. It was weird having thoughts that were directed at myself come into my mind. Particularly words like “We love you!” – certainly an unlikely thing for me to say to myself, because I frankly do not suffer from an overabundance of self-love. I went through pretty awful self-doubts. But it just kept on coming. I heard the suggestion to write it down, to try using a tape recorder. Finally, I did. The messages were loving. They did not ask me to go to Timbucktoo; in fact they said most of the work of living Michael”s religion was done as we passed by. The messages were about seeking daily time in communion with the Father, seeking fellowship with Michael, seeking to love my brothers and sisters better. Simple. And true.
?That was in September of 1992. I have been a T/R now for a TM group since late October. And for those of you who have gone through rejection from the FOG situation, while what has happened to some of us cannot begin to compare with your suffering, we have indeed faced rejection, sometimes from our nearest and dearest friends. At least for myself, I do not feel I am a special person because of this, or that the words which come out of my mouth are unsullied truth. Anything that comes through the human mind is far short of the absolute truth which is found only in the Father. Although I have come to believe that the paradigm/ metaphor of the TM as the explanation of this set of phenomena is as true a model as I am going to find for this situation, I am aware that much of our human experience is merely scaffolding. I do not expect to understand what is happening in fullness until I am no longer on this planet. But when I see the changes in my brothers and sisters as they strive to spiritualize their lives, when I see the outburst of growth where there had not been the same before, when I know of the increase in my own relationship with my adjuster and with Michael and the fruits in my own life, I cannot deny that SOMEthing is happening, and that something is largely positive. I do not dispute that there are dangers here; there will be problems. How could it be otherwise in an endeavor that includes human beings? But I cannot deny the growth before my eyes of my brothers and sisters. I have come to the conclusion that no matter what is happening, the heart of it, the essence of it is from the Father and in line with his will. I am not interested in seeing teachers or T/Rs as sacred cows. Teachers don”t want this, nor do most T/Rs I know. I am not interested in elevating the transcripts to levels of sacred material to replace or supplant the Urantia book. I don”t believe that is their purpose. But I don”t believe that sharing our experiences with the truth of the living God destroys that truth. Of course, it waters it down. We are human. But in the sharing of the excitement of the discovery of relationship with the Father, we often come into a deeper awareness of our siblinghood, that we truly are, each one of us, a precious child of that loving Father, and truly brothers and sisters.
?I am not offended by the doubts and aspersions of others. There is little that has been said which I have not said myself at one time or another. Please feel free to ask me questions, to lambast me at will. Dialogue is always acceptable to me; I perceive more danger when we do NOT talk freely and frankly. (Besides, I am a tough old biddy and can probably take it 🙂
?There is so much we share; I hope that we can all remember that in the times ahead. And that we can, as Jesus did, focus each others truths, at least as much as we focus on what we perceive as each others” distortions.
?Jesus said (p.1732-1733)
?”Those who are born of the spirit of God shall henceforth discern the word of God regardless of whence it appears to take origin. Divine truth must not be discounted because the channel of its bestowal is apparently human.”
?Further on in that same discourse, he also indicates two demonstrations of God-knowingness. And on page 1000 is one of several tests in the UB about things such as the TM. I can only make the decisions about these things personally, based on my personal experience. You will all make up your own minds according to your own sense of the Spirit of Truth. This is as it should be. I believe there is room for us all in the same loving community of believers in the teachings of Jesus and the Urantia book.
27 Apr 1993 ???Thea Hardy ??????Getting to know you…
Subject: Getting to know you… In-Reply-To: [9304271922.AA02326@atlantis.CSOS.ORST.EDU]
?Dick, thanks for your post re the Friends society. Our UB group is currently meeting in the local Friends Meeting House and some of us have considered attending Sunday meetings. I have thought for years that the Friends” concept of the light was very reminiscent of certain aspects of adjuster attunement. Your post is an encouragement in the positive direction as regards considering giving it a try.
?BTW, there are some of involved in the TM who did not expect any miraculous appearances from Machiventa 🙂 I was certainly one of those. I think anyone who swallows the TM whole without using their own grasp of the Spirit of Truth is making a big mistake. If I found that participating in the TM required severing my head from my body and putting it in a bag, I would refuse to participate! Not everyone in the TM is like-minded anymore than are all of us who study the book. That is actually a comfort, of course. And occasionally a bane! 🙂
?Chuck, I probably shouldn”t giggle at your post, but I sho” as hell did.
?Leo, I appreciated your comments on tolerance (plus the info that gave me a chance to get to know you better) because as I see it, tolerance of each other is what will get us by in our differences, and what will hopefully let us keep dialoguing without excessive negativity. Personally, I don”t care if others believe in the TM or not. I would just prefer to be considered a full human being who is not necessarily of unsound mind for the fact that I do believe in it. And it not, hey, I have been considered worse. I am interested in the ways all of us, any of us, whatever our individual differences make whatever contacts we do with the spiritual. When I hear what others experience, what others wrestle with, it encourages and strengthens me in my own search. I am glad to be permitted to be on-board here.
?Sara, I have enjoyed your nature descriptions. Nature is my cathedral, too, and the beauty is ever inspiring. We drove to the coast last week when the trees were just coming out and the entire landscape for miles was a dapple of greens of every description, and pinks and whites for ornament. It was entirely exhilirating and uplifting. Rebellion-torn or not, this is a beautiful planet, too, not just a tawdry one.
?Mister Musician: (I am trying to remember who you were) I am also a musician and was interested in your comments about creativity and “receiving”. EMail me privately if our topic would perhaps be too far afield for the rest of you (Don”t want to bore) and we could talk about it. I have had experiences where I have felt “helped” with my music (I play synthesizer and do some tv and radio soundtracks plus some computer graphics for a living)
?David, I will check out the passage on 1199 re creative imagination.
?Everyone else I have missed, and all of you: It is really refreshing to see such a group of intelligent and interesting people on here. And all talking about our favorite book! Thanks for being here.
?And to Michael M., _thanks_ for telling me about this list.
28 Apr 1993 ???Thea Hardy ??????Problems of Faking et al
Subject: Problems of Faking et al In-Reply-To: [9304280007.AA04604@atlantis.CSOS.ORST.EDU]
?David, your message about not wanting to have to fake (whatever!) was really significant to me. One of the toughest struggles I have had as a religionist both before (long ago as that mayhave been) and after the UB has been my allergy to faking. (And I really agree that a diversity of activities for religionists to select from would help, though not solve, the problem) For my first years in the book the group I attended was comfortable in this respect; I did not feel obliged to do things that just didn”t work for me. My later experiences were less pleasant. I was not part of a reading group on a regular basis for years. Part of it was because the groups available to me didn”t function in a way that worked for me. And I haven”t found too many groups, in and out of the UB territory, that were all that amenable to discussing change in an out-front manner. Then as the brouhaha between the Foundation and the Fellowship heated up, I guess I just sort of turned away in disgust. There are people who appear to believe that I somehow failed to do my duty by not participating in the groups et al, who appear to have believed that I could not be as spiritually advanced because I chose to socialize my religious experience in ways different from theirs – sort of like if I were not in a study group, I must not really have been serious about the UB and could not really be that serious about God. I kept studying the book through the years (fortunately I had my husband and a few friends to discuss it with, and plenty of other religionists to discuss the shared truths with) and like to think that I have managed to make some growth despite my supposed anti-social attitude where UB groups are concerned. But when I recalled the “acting nice” that went on in the church of my youth, and the “acting nice” that often seemed to go on in groups I checked out, they seemed pretty much the same to me. Troublesome tensions would go unresolved because no one wanted to talk about them. That has just never worked for me. I still don”t see how a problem can be resolved if you can”t get it out in the open and talk it over. I always felt constrained -like there were things I could express at a meeting, and things, honest things that might not be very pretty about myself, but that I was wrestling with and wanted to talk over with my brothers and sisters, that were just not permitted. You know – the things where you say it and suddenly the room is very silent or the subject gets changed really quickly? Maybe part of my problem is that I have always been interested in how to _live_ the book, as well as study it. My primary interest in studying it is to find out how to live like Michael did. So I have always wanted to talk about how it applied to my life and the lives of others. And frankly, I have not found a lot of places where that really honestly and openly happens. And without that, I found that I spent a lot of time having to fake, and getting very tense. It really didn”t contribute much to a spiritual feeling. I probably brought others down as well. So when I hear you talk about not wanting to fake it, David, that is like a breath of fresh air. And having diverse activities would mean that those who wanted to do something like I want could get together and do it without others wanting them to stop. My present group spends a good bit of the meeting time talking about the past week and spiritual problem solving in relation to it. I feel like I can be myself and we have a lot of shared laughter as well as the struggles. I can”t tell you how gratifying it feels to know that in this particular group of people, I don”t have to fake. If I don”t want to do something, or don”t want to participate, or feel a different way, I can just say so.
?That”s how I want to be able to be here in this Forum, too. Who I am, come what may. It looks like that is what you are all doing, and I am delighted to find another place in my life where this is possible and in the context of people who love that same big ol” book.
28 Apr 1993 ???Dennis Shields ?????TM, MARTIN, CD-ROM, ECT.
Subject: TM, MARTIN, CD-ROM, ECT.
?Aloha logondonters. tis a joy and an honor to be a participant in this what I view as Urmia on line. Hats off and Mahalo to brother Michael Million a modern Cymboyton I say! Michael thanx a million. This from the member of the Shields family who proposed naming his as yet unborn daughter Wind (hey that”s not as out there as the family named Lear who called their daughter Shanda);
?I would like to address several topics:
?The removal of Martin Myers as trustee,
?The copyright, the symbols,
?The remarriage of the brotherhood and the foundation,
?A multimedia CD-ROM version of the UB and lastly
?The *hey brother can you paradigm* department..
?- I have chosen to take the role of Switzerland, that is I believe that the truth does not fear an honest examination, that knowledge of the truth sets one free, that the proof is in the pudding and just what does the test of time say anyway.
?On the *con* side of the issue from my perspective; the connotation of the term channeling, I have had to back off from my imageering of Shirley Mclaine and Hunk Ra of Doonesbury fame. You know kind of a knee jerk revulsion to the term.
?Un-kept dates certain of promises of appearances, the thought of people ego -inflating themselves to a pipeline to god status, pronouncements of healing at deaths door (I mean I regard Vinnie Ventola as a friend) remembrances of the Vern messages and their aftermath these are but some of the thoughts, fears and concerns that this phenomenon naturally draws to itself.
?I first became aware of the Ham messages oh maybe early July 92. This first awareness was made up of a series of parts: a transcript of the LA meeting, the Woods cross teachings and some local hubbub some saying it was real others saying it wasn”t real.
?The message in a nut shell made some interesting statements, the end to the Lucifer rebellion, the opening of the circuits, the beginning of the correcting time participants urged to seek the Father through the *stillness*, floodgates open to the arrival of descending ascending mortals and other teachers.
?Hard not to hope its true. (A Shields rule of thumb reality check ….wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which fills first….. kinda cynical so this must be seasoned with faith and a liberal dose of mercy)
?But the lack of apparent depth to the teachings that is their simplicity and the absence of any new facets to the text of the UB seamed in appropriate. At the outset these presented challenges to what otherwise were offerings of hope. The thought that it seemed unlikely that after only 50 years the text would need be amended created the need to observe these outbreaks of alleged inspired writings and so I began to investigate this phenomenon. Because I knew some of the individuals involved I decided early on that I must remain neutral in my own stated beliefs as much as possible in order to give as much of an unbiased examination as this inherently subjective individual can muster.
?I began by scanning what text came my way so that it might be a digital commodity interchanged with whom ever might wish to examine it. The scanning process, o.c.r. technology being what it is, necessitated a period of editing. As soon as one transcript was finished a new tome several hundred pages longer than the last from a different source would become available. in the months that followed I eventually began to receive the transcripts on floppy and have spent much time in verbal discussion of the TM both short and long distance telephoning to those both receptive and non receptive of the teaching mission. I have both heard and given statements as to how it either could be true or how it can not be true and I have some observations, which I feel merit discussion.
?The sentiments of those addressing these topics here in logondonter land appear to be biased either to one direction or the other. From David Kantor we hear the view of one survivor of the FOG war which sorta takes the tone of hey it didn”t work for us so therefore it must not work for them. My test message to this forum mentioned something about all being yellow to a jaundiced eye.
?—(David, as an aside, you FOG BOMer s keep mentioning something about 1985 as I recall my exposure to the existence of the Vern messages started after the KAL 007 passenger jet was shot down by the Russkies in Sept. of 83 it was I believe and the evil empire rhetoric of ron raygun was still a hot topic it was this height of superpower tension as a backdrop which lent credibility at the time to the messages from FOG. Oh and as to there not being a shred of evidence as to a near war narrowly being avoided It has been reported to me that an article in Newsweek published some time between 89 and 92 titled *Secrets of the Kremlin* detailed as to how during the time frame following the KAL 007 shoot down the Russians mistook a increased level of readiness on the American side as a signal that the US was about to launch a first strike and had also put themselves on red alert and were also considering a first strike, as the existence of this article and its contents are mine second hand albeit from two separate sources one a believer in the TM and the other from a confirmed skeptic I tend to think there may be some fire behind the smoke. the issue had Winton Marsalius (sp?) on the cover. Were still on the hunt for the issue here but being 3000 miles out in the midst of the pacific on the worlds largest and at the same time most active volcano does have some limitations perhaps the unearthing of this article may be easier on the mainland, its probably available from some on line service yet my self being sorta low on the learning curve in logonese perhaps some one with a more worn in saddle can ferret out the info. I am curious as to the accuracy of what has been reported to me.)
?Getting to the observations that I have regarding the TM
?After sifting through hundreds if not thousands of pages of transcripts and commentary there are three explanations for the teaching mission which are the most interesting to me.
?The up welling of the common consciousness;
?it is what it says it is;
?it is the doings of rebel personalities;
?The last contention is the least meritorious of any of the above. Einstein was fond of remarking that God does not play with dice. Neither does he play dirty pool, that people would sincerely seek God the Father using techniques of worship and *stillness* recommended in the book and then hook into *da devil: eh, no can be brudda, wrong already.* The protection of the outpoured spirit of truth has just got to count for somethin.
?So what”s left is a choice of an explanation which on one hand could be described as an intellectual analysis barren of spiritual viability which if extended to the book itself could be used in skepticism to explain the origin of the book as coming from the mischief of the mind; or on the other as a rational explanation of the inter workings of minds at mischief.
?Either that explains it or its an event which men have predicted incorrectly for 2000 years and even recently the pursuit of this worthwhile unattainable has led to a human barbecue Tejas style of jim jonesian proportions
?So we must be careful! We don”t want to buy any woof tickets (a *woof* ticket is a license to bark up the wrong tree). We don”t want to miss the chance of helping the Master ring in the opening of the correcting time. and we don”t wish to spend years explaining to ourselves and others how we could have mistaken our own inner thoughts for communications with the spiritual hierarchy of the universe.
?So here we are *standin at the crossroads tryin to flag a ride*
?in my current final analysis: *the jury”s not in yet*.
?But I must note at least one theme which I have not seen addressed and that is that the teaching mission is filling the void in the Urantia movement of spiritual leadership and education left ever sense the FOG disillusionment. The types of instruction seem to be focused on those areas which in our intellectual pontificating as to how many warts on a univitatias head and on just which local or superuniverse level do we get to count them we overlook the *as he passed by* types of goodness and the quiet time with the father simplicities which are the hallmarks of the religion of Jesus. The common thread in a multiplicity of TM transmissions is this unhurried focus on sorta basic Jesusonianism, and weather or not this is the common consciousness up welling in consort with the adulterated glimmerings of true adjuster communication or Machiventa and all his buddies are here to throw the biggest block party this orb has ever seen, I say here! here! And yeah God! its about time we started to see applied Jesusonianism at work (not that there hasn”t been applied Jesusonianism at work in the last two thousand years just there is an increased interest and focus coming from the manifestation of the TM).
?A prime contention of the skeptics of the TM has been the comparisons of the transcripts of the *teachers* and the text of the urantia book, the formal precisionist grade English of the book honed to razor sharpness through a couple a decades of revision working with the *forum* compared to the grammatically loose wysiwyg style of some of the teaching messages.
?The question I must poise to this criticism is; would one expect that an *effective* teacher in a collage class or professional training seminar would speak to students in the formalistic jargonistic lingo of the subjects text book or would they try to bridge the text to the students level of day by day communication thus to enhance the comprehension of the text and facilitate its application?
?interestingly enough this poor by comparison dialog examination has given demonstration of consistency within the TM to wit I was turned off by Hams stylistic use of the English language — (as to my own usage”s of the language .. sa habla americano I speak American) — he has what seems to be an accent sorta a pidgin English kinda like a italian immigrants thick accent * im a gonna see a da pope a* it seems to me that this *bad* English is stylishly idiosyncratic to Ham and is consistent in the teachings attributed to Ham regardless of whom the T/R or the locality where the transmission is being received. not that this is proof mind you just interesting.
?The vane of truth most rewarding to mine is the boulevard named *the fruits of the spirit* and it is this anecdotal information which I am most interested in now.
?Has the TM brought men (and women [Nancy J. no sexism implied here by gum]) to God?
?Has it brought God to men?
?What has it done to the individuals soul growth?
?These are the *test of time* types of analysis which are the final arbitrator of the real value of the TM.
?regarding proofs double blind and otherwise I thought it both fascinating and original that such request for proof or signs and wonders brought remarks from the teachers of concern as to keeping intact our agondonter status. Now personally if the price of bringing peace on earth and goodwill among mankind was for me to lose what possibility I have toward being an agondonter Id chuck it in a New York second of course this statement is made in blissful ignorance of what exactly the ramifications are of abandoning such status, *stepped in what?*
?I did ask a question of the teachers months ago I addressed this via s-mail to Ham at the time he was the prominent teaching entity although now I would not ask the question of Ham it would be better directed to a perported Celestial Musician the the question is one Id like feed back to no matter who the answer comes from and so I throw it out at this time in this forum for sake of discussion:
?— Questions to Ham
?First a brief preamble to set the context in which the questions are asked.
?The Urantia book informs us that harmony is the speech of Paradise, that music is the language of men angles and spirits. it would follow that earthly music is in some respects a shadow of this heavenly language.
?What we call western music sounds *right* vs. atonal music which has more than twelve steps before the key tone repeats at the octave. Western scales are built on seven tones then the repeat of the first tone. This seven feature we find repeated through out both the Universe and the Urantia book. For example: The periodic table, the seven primary colors of the visible octave of light, the Seven Super Universes, the Seven Mansion worlds and also music.
?The number seven being primary I understand to be attributable to there only being seven associative possibilities of the Persons of the Trinity.
?My Questions have to do with the meanings of *word groupings* in the music *language*
?Given a scale of seven tones, which we call a major scale, the majority of our folk songs, blues songs and gospel songs all base there song structure sometimes more and sometimes less on the following:
?A major tritone chord based on the first tone of the series , this played for repeated time divisions next a major tritone based on the fourth tone of the seven tone major scale, repeated for an equal number of time divisions, then followed in like manner with a last tritone based on the fifth tone in series. I am led to believe that there is some “meaning” in a *language* sense to the associations of sounds organized in such *tritone* chords based on seven toned scales.
?What is the meaning in a spiritual sense of the relationship of tones?
?What is the underlying spiritual statement of a One four five chord sequence?
?I realize that a strictly mechanical relationship from tone to individual Trinity Deity or combinations of members of the Trinity is too limiting. Yet we are at the beginning of the understanding of such things, surely there is a beginning lesson ?
?I realize that this is a multidimensional subject being examined from a three dimensional view point but the aforementioned associations, of tone, they sound *right* to people with out the need of explanation which causes me to believe that in a *baby talk* sort of way that in our music we are echoing the barely heard whisperings of the Angles.
?How is this so, what are the meanings of chords in relationship to the Father Son and Spirit?
?How may we learn to express music in a more spiritual way?
?For example is there a tonal sequence which musically would express the concept * God is love* and be understood as such without lyrics by Angels and Spirits? And perhaps even mankind?
?Would ya hum a few bars?
?in closing Years ago a friend of mine after learning that Harmony is the Speech of Havona wrote a song with the lyric: * harmony is the speech of paradise and all the angels listen cause it sounds so nice*
?this expression of truth struck a *chord* within me and it is in furtherance of this *chord* that I sincerely ask these questions,
?Would you please comment in depth on this topic?
28 Apr 1993 ???Thea Hardy ??????Re: Geeks bearing solids
Subject: Re: Geeks bearing solids In-Reply-To: [9304282028.AA02604@atlantis.CSOS.ORST.EDU]
?Leo, when it comes to things of such ilk, I am confessedly square. But I will beware of geeks bearing solids. What about geeks bearing liquids?
?David (et al), in response to your ruminations about symbols – I, too, am much more moved by Bach than ditties, et al. I grew up with the stained glass windows and choirs and those great outworkings of truth and beauty were the part that I _did_ respond to in the church of my childhood! So I understand what you are saying here. And I don”t think that pallid substitutes will hold the loyalties of our children. There has to be some way to integrate these things; it stumps me because I do think about the new wine into old wineskins problem… yet, throwing out the realities of the old does not seem the thing to do, either. And when I think of the needs on the planet, needs for Michael”s teachings, I ponder things like how western symbolism, however meaningful to me, can “reach” those from other cultures; I ponder how we can feelingfully implement a universally appealing symbolism; I ponder how we can have things simple enough to appeal to all, yet rich enough in depth to satisfy even the most searching of our souls! On the surface, part of it seems simple enough. As I read the book, the message of Michael”s life would indicate that we must spread the concepts of the loving Father/ Parent and our resultant siblinghood which asks us to love each other as the Father loves us. That does not seem so difficult on the surface. But then when one tries to conceptualize the symbolization of that…whew!! I do believe that we need some “rituals”… not things to which we are slavishly tied, and that require faked participation by all in order to be a part… but something shared that can help us to a sense of community and help us extend that community far and wide. I become torn when I think about transforming the old churches (inertia is a powerful force to work against!) and trying to create something truly new (Cute little songs and pictures cannot replace the majesty of past great art in terms of inspiration). And can we “create” this? Must it grow? If so, what can we do to make it grow? Then, on other days, I think that my task is to simply live my life according to the Father”s will to the best of my ability by doing as much good as possible as I pass by. But that is only some days…
?This is a true-blue conundrum.
?Phil, you make a good point about the apostles not waiting for “complete personal integration” before heading out. I used to think I needed to be more perfect before I had a right to even think about addressing some of these problems. Now that I know I have such a long way to go, 🙂 I guess I may as well stop waiting…
?Peg, my “place” was a lovely cemetary on a hilltop with a splendid view, a place to go and pray and to watch the sunsets and the stars in summer and share myself with the Father. Having moved even a scant 20 miles, and now that we live in an apartment building, I have scoured the area without having yet found a new place; How I miss that cemetary!
?Ah, Leo…balancing “sincerity” with tact! Yes, I have a tad bit of work to do on that one…
?Dick, we live in the wilds of Oregon, but my husband grew up in El Cajon. As to your offer of hospitality, muchas gracias!
?Again, I am glad you are all here; I look forward to getting to know you.
29 Apr 1993 ???Thea Hardy ??????Misc Ramblings (brief!)
Subject: Misc Ramblings (brief!) In-Reply-To: [9304290439.AA08586@atlantis.CSOS.ORST.EDU]
?Ah, Peter! Yes, it was you. I am not yawning or rolling my eyes! Will look forward to the EMail. Your comments on your response to some of the more traditional symbolism points to part of the dilemma I see… how can we make the new symbolism rich enough? Can we “make” the new symbolism, or must it grow? If we have completely autonomous study groups (which is probably closest to my preference, too, on many levels) how do we find the unity and evolve into the “new cult”? How do we manage unity and autonomy?
?I like how our group is going; another might hate it… Sometimes I just don”t know what to think about this.
?Dennis, not everyone here is allergic to the mission; as a T/R, I find it interesting and significant enough to discuss. However, I wonder if we might consider a separate Urantia list for such discussion so that we can do so without nauseating others. I do not see TM as a sacred cow; I am interested in discussing “what is really going on” but I am not interested in offending those who are not interested; I respect their right to their opinions and I enjoy discussing other things with them and would like to continue to do so. Any of you – thoughts on a separate list?
?Brevity. Yes, I too will try; I also cannot manage such lengths.
?David, there were a lot more than 180 of us who did not go conjuring and were not interested in doing so! (And, many there who were not too hot on it, either) The TM is not by any means a homogenous thing. And as I said before, I think anyone who buys everything that comes out of it wholesale had best beware. But I do buy putting Jesus”s teachings into practice and I will listen to info about that from whatever source. Hope you will forgive me because I am enjoying talking with you and learn a lot from what you have to say.
?Michael, have you disappeared? (I am referring to Mister Million, not Michael of Nebadon!)
29 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Quick Note to Thea
Subject: Quick Note to Thea
?Thea; I hope we never have a forum where anyone feels a need to apologize for what they believe in; defend perhaps, but apologize no. I think that we are in serious need of better understanding the processes by which we avail ourselves of the constant help and guidance being offered by our unseen friends. Dick”s description of the Quaker approach is particularly appealing specially in light of the fact that they have been able to successfully establish a tradition which enables successive generations to utilize the same tools. To me, there is a big difference between that still small voice which shows me some insight into how I can be a better father or a more effective person in my community, and a claim about cultural phenomena such as the Lucifer rebellion being terminated, etc. This latter type of information is of a completely different nature than the former as is the claim that teachers are descending en masse and inaugurating an extension of the 5th epochal revelation. Such claims, as far as I”m concerned, require some substantial justification and cannot be made with utter disregard for their philosophic or even rational integration with the rest of human experience and knowledge. In my experience, it is only careful rational and philosophical consideration of our spiritual experiences within a community of like-minded spiritual seekers which enables us to keep from wandering off into the byways of our own psyches — learning to manage an active mind in its strivings to understand universe reality is no small task. I appreciate the fact that there are people who take the position that their own personal experience and feelings are the starting point for the development of a universe philosophy. While I disagree strongly with this view, I have also come to appreciate the futility of attempting to engage a person who thinks their views transcend rationality, in a rational discussion. I bristle when people publish broad unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to evangelize others to their viewpoint and will more than likely respond accordingly. I also get pretty activated when people”s rhetoric is that of promoting their identification with a *movement* rather than their personal spiritual experience. I think some questioning is warranted here also and I admit to holding some strong personal views. But a person”s personal spiritual experience seems to me to be pretty sacred ground.
29 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????From J.McNelly re: Naperville
Subject: From J.McNelly re: Naperville
??David Kantor”s news flash of the Big Mac No-show at the Holiday Inn was the first real news I had heard of the non-event, although I had a private e-mail from a friend who said that the Sedona priests were a manipulative and disruptive force.
?I had seriously contemplated attending the Mac Attack, the sense of theater and illusion is cultural drama at its best. I even offered to attend with Rich Keeler, who considered arriving in disguise, maybe a Groucho mask. Anyway, Linda and I had a lovely meditation at home and played Agondonter for a day, not needing to see in order to believe.
?When Jesus made his morontia appearances following his crucifixion, there was no need for proximity in space; he seemed to know where people were. The believers who were told by the runners that Jesus had risen replied, “we know, he was just with us.”
?It seems ironic that we have words in the U Book that are rather clear, “When two or more are gathered in my name, I am there.” I wonder why there was no celebration at the presence of Jesus? Mac is great, but it seems that the Creator Son is pretty special as well.
?The week before Macamania, there was a no-show of “our Lady of Minnesota”, not more than 70 miles from our home. Over 3000 people gathered at a dreary wind swept farm field to see a vision of Mary. Covered by all the local media, most went away bitter at the channeler who predicted the arrival.
?All of this reminds me of Simon Zelotes trying to cast out demons at the foot of the hills while Jesus and a few apostles were being transfigured on the mountain. Once again, the drama of tragedy and comedy, belief and unbelief relating to physical manifestations brought shame upon brotherhood of believers.
?There must be a lesson(s) in all this. I have already insulated myself from the claims of the TM and my own Universe Romancing by considering it to all be true, but none of it fact. I am sure that Mac was there, but only in a spiritual sense. It makes clear, however, that we are a planet of multiple levels of culture and religious evolution existing simultaneously in social settings. We have very primitive ghost cults being practiced by earth worshipers, book fetishists, cult followers, charasmics, believers, morontians, and cosmic citizens all in the same congregation.
?Do we overly ridicule the religion of primities, or primitive religion? I hope not. Certainly this non-event, along with some of the psycho-babble in many of the TM transcripts, will add straw to the FEF compost to rid the brotherhood of believers from such “sordid nonsense”. I predict that there will soon be a resolution from the great and mighty Executive Committee casting TM”ers and their believers out of the inner sanctums of ecclesiastical authority in order to keep the Urantia teachings “pure”.
?My last prognostication is that if we desire to see where the future wil be of organized religion (the ultimate oxymoron) around the Urantia Book, look to Earnest Moyer and David Strang, the neo-medievalists who call themselves Urantia Fundamentalists. Look also to Mary Daly, the Catholic apologist who would cast out any who would question the inerrancy of the new “scripture”.
?Mark this week well in your galactic clock-calendars. From this point on, camps of religionsist will now align themselves into their belief networks. The schism has been fully realized. The “in and out” groups are identified. The only bastion of open mindedness left will be in the home study groups and on this board, the new Urmia.
29 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????From J.McNelly: UB “cult”ure
Subject: From J.McNelly: UB “cult”ure
?Good morning Logondonters,
?Phil, the UseNet gateway I use to access this board causes a two to three day delay in receiving and sending messages. I look forward to an eventual Internet hub, but it may take months.
?Let me first respond to your earlier comments about the messages of the Orvonton Commission aka 1911-1933 always being “excellent”. I recall the oral history from Julia and others to suggest that there were numerous complaints by the ghost writers that the questions of the Forum were very low quality and mundane. Were there not also observations of dismay at the low level of impact that the teachings had on the forumites. I also recall that there were numerous “private sessions” and that eventually the Midwayers had to call off the ”psychic reading” sessions.
?So if it is true that the messages were always excellent, it is clear that the human corollaries were not. And what evidence do we have of the excellence of the dialogues of the 20”s? The “world is not ready” papers and little more. I suppose that Sadler”s “Evolution of the Soul” from the 1940s(?) is another example. I do not find it to be particularly extraordinary. And also consider how it took the good Doctor himself forty years to accept the contact as “fact”. Was he blind to the supposedly obvious perfection of the information?
?Let us also consider the relative lack of spiritual evolution of the Forumites, the mundane text-shell of Urantia Brotherhood, the Brotherhood school fiasco, the failure to develop a comprehensive book distribution plan, the anti-social misfit attitudes, right wing politics, Executive Committee ecclesiasticism, and the Vern-Martin oligarchy.
?I wonder if real spirit contact of the Orvonton commission has any more or less soul growth value than the TM phenomenon. For those who have not read “Universe Romancing” (order _today!_ through Michael Million), I portray the notion that the TM process is the young soul”s dabbling in emerging morontia consciousness, and that the questioning process itself is what is of value, especially in the context of spirit receptivity. The answers have little value outside the immediacy of the moment for those having the experience, and that it is the process that is useful, not the content.
?As a last word, I wonder what _real_ reserve corps work entails.
29 Apr 1993 ???Philip Calabrese ?????Symbols of Culture
Subject: Symbols of Culture
?——- Hello Logondonters,
?Firstly, I want to object again to the suggestion made here more than once that the Urantia papers that the Forum read and discussed were rough or inaccurate writings that the Forum had to refine and correct. It is simply inaccurate to draw a parallel between the Forum process of refining interpretations and the present-day process of separating the many apparently gross factual errors of the TM transcripts from the spiritual truths they may also contain.
?Thea – Commitment is always hard; that is also why once made, commitments can betray the person”s highest ideals – because it is so hard to turn back after investing so much. It can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Coupled with significant error, the results can be appalling.
?Another thing that bothers me about the TM is the heavy emphasis on the mechanics of communication and the supposed special nature of the communications. This may be a function of the (imperfect) people involved, but it is still troubling in that it suggests that these people are being primarily attracted by the “wonder- working” visitations rather than by the truths for their own sake. How many of these people would be so attracted were they told never to divulge the source or method of reception, but only spread the spiritual truth? I wonder. I”m afraid that there is all too much potential for insidious ego involvement when people believe that they are in some way special as “channels” or receivers of channeling. Why is it desirable to make explicit claims of “channeling”? Is it not to attract people to the phenomenon when the truths would not do so by themselves?
29 Apr 1993 ???Michael Million ????Welcome/List Usage
Subject: Welcome/List Usage
?** Perhaps I should make something clear to all. I have *invited* the TM ”community” to join us on urantial. I welcome them with open arms as fellow truth seekers. They are not to be considered ”less” in any sense than any other list member; they have my respect and appreciation for sharing their living experience of their faith. All of us should keep in mind that an individual does not have to be a UB student/reader or even to have ever heard of the book before in order to ”qualify” to be a list member. Interest and a modicum of civility are the only requirements. One just has to be interested in learning more about the book–for the contents of the book, our individual interpretations and our efforts at integrating and consolidating wisdom, as well as our respective spiritual experiences and worldviews–largely defines the goals of this discussion list. Anyone who gets in the habit of demeaning the TM folks – or any other perceived ”subset” of mortals – will be doing a *DIS-service* to the UB community, the dissemination of the UB and to this list, urantial.
?If someone can manage to convince another listserv facility to sponsor a TM-dedicated list, let me know for I would join immediately; I have no reason to believe that it will happen at this location (uafsysb).
29 Apr 1993 ???Thea Hardy ??????Misc Usuals
Subject: Misc Usuals In-Reply-To: [9304291915.AA17745@atlantis.CSOS.ORST.EDU]
?Hi, all —
?David, thanks for the note. I have a couple of things to say to you and Phil about which I will try to be brief. I have not personally been around many others in the TM – other T/Rs, other “established” groups – so I don”t really know how they operate. For myself, I have in fact seen some members try to promote the TM in a manner with which I was extremely uncomfortable. If it comes down to “miracles”, in my mind it comes down to nothing. What are we agondonters for, then? I personally don”t feel like I am anything special at all, in fact the whole thing is rather embarrassing and people have sometimes treated me and my fellow T/R (a nice fellow, BTW 🙂 with this ridiculous respect which we have finally managed to pretty much get rid of. If a person were interested in self-aggrandizement, I can see just what could happen with it, and undoubtedly has and will. We have managed to nip that in the bud here at least to the extent that some who want to blow the trumpets are not too pleased with our more modest approach. I am personally upset by the desire for bizarre manifestations. The quiet truths that are in the “messages” are what interest me. I don”t think I am a mouthpiece for God or anything of the kind. I do not even know if I will ever be certain exactly what is happening. But as long as I see an increased desire to be in touch with the Father and try to live Michael”s teachings in myself and those around me, I guess I will continue to do whatever this is. I personally am not much concerned about the absolute validity of some parts of the messages… I just have my own personal experience of an enhanced spiritual life and the experience of those around me. We are a small group and not a particularly loud group. But I have a personal history that indicates to me that I have at least some capability for turning away from things when they become corrupt. So far in my life I have managed to be more loyal to the truth the best I can see it than to other things; I pray to God that this will continue. If certain kinds of things start to “appear” in the messages that I “get”, I will frankly quit. Don”t mistake me. I believe that something is happening, and that it is real and of the Father”s will. I am somewhat unconcerned as to the exact description of the scaffolding. I also know that no matter what we are presented with, there will be those who corrupt it, as has happened with the book. But I am unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I am able to hear that small, still voice in me and it speaks messages of love, I do not turn away. Perhaps the “teachers” are a verbalization of the superconscious; I do not really know. I only know that everything that I have learned in 23 years from the UB says to follow truth and I do not expect anything human to be absolute truth. As long as there are more wildflowers than weeds in these transcripts (and frankly, I do not consider all transcripts to be of the same value – not even from myself), I will continue to pick the wildflowers, and trust the Father to take care of the weeds. I admit to curiosity as to which participants of the TM you guys are referring to when you talk about the grandiosity and wonder-seekers. I know there are some, but you sound as though you have personal experience with some. If so, I hope not to meet those particular ones! 🙂 I think there are dangers inherent in overgeneralizing from the FOG experience for several reasons, not the least being that we will undoubtedly make our own unique mistakes. One major thing is that there is no central human personality as a focus, and had their been, I would have been even more leery than I was. I have a background in Psychology and recognize the sociopathic mindset to which you refer. I would prefer to see the TM as a quiet little backwater thing where groups gather and share their spiritual experiences rather privately and go about their daily lives trying to live as we all do, the Father”s will as best as we can. For me, perhaps the TM is more about a better way to relate to each other in a group (we actually talk about personal experience and reality these days, and share our personal concepts more freely, much as happens here in the New Urmia) and a deeper commitment to really living Michael”s teachings day by day than it is about messages from Outer Space. I said I would try to be brief, and I wasn”t. I guess what I want you to know is that there are as many variations on how those of us who are participating in the TM see it as there are variations among those of us who are UB readers at large. I would hate to see us all labeled and characterized as the same. What that does is to dehumanize the individuals involved and leads to a blanket rejection and prejudice which I would personally think as un-Jesusonian in tone. There are some who are sincere, some who are semi-sincere, and some who are not sincere, just as in any other group of human beings. Please judge us, if you must, as individuals. Thank you for your patience.
?Dick, your seed-planting concept is really apropos. No matter what we want to do, seed-planting is probably it. Not only that, but if the acts our ours and the consequences God”s, we probably will not even know which seeds took hold, nor perhaps should we have overmuch concern. I know I am beginning to understand that one way we plant seeds is in the tiniest of things – the smile at the sad-faced old man at the grocery store, opening the door for the confused and grubby little kid who can”t quite manage it, saying a word of comfort when a friend is hurting – all the little things we can do add up to a great deal if we think of infecting a world with the benign virus. What I try to do increasingly is to see everyone (even the A**hole who cuts in front of me in traffic) as a child of the Father. Sometimes I even just say it outloud to remind myself before my rebellious mind can get ahold of the criticisms. It is not an easy practice, but I have found it rewarding, and it brings me many tiny, bright moments in return. Sometimes I think we overcomplexify what Jesus asked us to do. Perhaps I should speak for myself; I have often gotten bogged down in intellectual analysis when pure and simple love was what a situation called for. Perhaps I should not assume that others here have had the same problems. But I certainly do. And the image of seed-sowing seems increasingly realistic to me. May you indeed become a lovely palm, Dick! I think I will go for a red Japanese maple myself.
?Thanks for your ears, all of you.
29 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????Pop Fly to McNelly
Subject: Pop Fly to McNelly
?I am very much enjoying your contributions hereon. While I agree that organizing religionists may be an oxymoron (it”s somewhat like trying to herd cats) I do detect an inconsistency in your posts which bothers me. Why do you show such generous acceptance of the TM people in one paragraph and such intolerance of Ernie Moyers and others in the next one? Are not the Ernie Moyers, David Strangs, Martin Meyers, et. al. of the world simply pursuing an integration of the UB into their lives in their own way to the best of their ability as are the TM people and as are (hopefully) you and I?
?For me, giving the TM folks some space means that I also have to give the Uranazi folks some space too. Likewise, if you accept the reasonableness of attacking one group of people whom you think are misrepresenting the 5th, doesn”t consistency require that you hold *everyone* to the same standard? (I”m not trying to justify the views of any of these folks, just asking you about the consistency of your position.)
?What”s the difference between “tolerance” and “acquiescence?”
?I think it”s important for religionists to be clear about what they stand for and believe in and to socially organize themselves accordingly. If the group remains open to whomever would like to accept the premises of the group and participate, what”s the problem? Like I said earlier, if someone wants to sacrifice a chicken before the start of each study group, they can do it at *their* house before *their* study group — I”ll have nothing to do with it and will seek out a group of like-minded folks who will join me in banning chickens from our gatherings.
?I don”t think you”re correct with your sharply drawn categories of “in and out groups” — I think we will see the demographics of the readership gradually approach a close congruence with the demographics of Christianity in the larger culture, from the Catholics to the Pentecostals, and everything in between.
?An interesting historical note is that it was the radical fringe groups which developed within early Christianity which eventually forced the central majority to adopt protective creeds and policies. And those fringe groups developed, to a great extent, simply because there were no well defined beliefs, creeds and policies. The people who need to have things more concretely defined and articulated lead the way to religious crystalization of spiritual concepts….
29 Apr 1993 ???leo elliott ???????????Roam home to a dome!
Subject: Roam home to a dome! TO: JERE HOUGH (RBXN61A) FROM: JIM MCNELLY (HFBB22A) SUBJECT: URANTIA BK. STUDY G.
?Jere and Scotty, I had a sad thought yesterday. I believe that we are seeing in Davididian and to a lesser extent Warren the futute of the Fifth Epochal Fellowship. There is already a movement afoot to bar TMers from fellowship positions. When Martin Myers went off the deep end, it came to the surface in 1984 when he _demanded_ that the General Council remove from the council any one who had shown any sympathy for Vern Grimsley. The self same Vern that was championed as the model of righteousness only a year before. Martin”s obsession with removing dreaded “message believing” Councilors reached a fevered pitch when a member removal amendment written by Martin was almost forced down our throats (I was on the Council at the time). It had only two or three supporters out of 36. Martin then decided to disband the Brotherhood for our “failure” to cast out the “sordid channellers”. Sound familiar? We stood up at the time for the right of any person to worship God in their own way and that believing in or belonging to any other religion was not cause for non membership in Urantia Brotherhood. That phrase is in the constitution of the organization. Martin eventually disbanded the organization, and when the separation occurred, there was a movement of many of us to ensure that religious freedom would be protected in the next group as well. But FEF decided not to become more democratic, and four years later, it is still a hierarchy of the Executive Committee with many who would attempt to wield the power of excommunication and spritiual judgement over their fellows. The leaders of FEF represent no one, just as Davidian represents no one. They actually believe that their views carry weight outside their own mind because of some deluded chosen people rationalization. The pending excommunication of the TMers will be the first step in isolating the “official” Urantia Movement from the course in Miracles, charismatics, new agers in general, and ultimately anyone who does not surrender to the authority of the self appointed and self proclaimed “leader” with the special insight! Well, they and Davidian can just stuff it as far as I am concerned. To have begun inquisitions and excommunications only 35 years after printing means to me that intolerance and chosen people delusions are to be the curse of the evolution of the Urantia Revelation just as it was in the Christian era. It is amazing that people can be so devoid of spirit and rigid in their interpretation! It is as if they never opened the book in the first place! There is a part of culture that has gone right from 13th century Rome chasing Galileos and murdering wiches and heritics into the 20th century, attacking trance prophets and mystics. Who are they going to excommunicate next? Silent prayers? Church goers? Peacenicks?
?So in Davididian I see the future of what was left of the promising and lovely Urantia Brotherhood. I am dismayed that their intolerant ilk poisons these boards, and pray for the sanctity of the home based study group. At least there, if the grand inquisitor comes to your door, we still have a constitution that protects freedom of religion and we can call the police on them for civil rights violations and tresspassing. It seems that the Davidian cult which is based on “who they are not” will infiltrate and poision any public forum that does not have the civil sense to provide a mechanism to protect peaceful users from attack. It seems that gentle souls need to make their airwaves safer. Jim~~~
30 Apr 1993 ???MARTIN J. PATTON ???????Moving to OZ
Subject: Moving to OZ TM and T/R: As most of you know my feeling on the TM movement is one of concern for the participants. Regardless of how we approach the subject it has to be made clear that no one knows what is real or false in their revelations. For some of us it is easy to see the error in some facets of the TRs human translations of what they sense. But, likewise for some of us it is easy to see the truth of other messages that they sense. I”ve worked with true clairvoyents and clairaudients to discern the truth. And, I”ve also investigated some whopping frauds! It is mighty hard to tell until the fruits of their messages start to bare. Yes some TRs are in it soley for self aggrandizement, and they trip up easily. Others after a period of practice get very good at discerning what”s from them and what”s from a higher source. So let us have a little patients with our brothers and sisters.
?Naperville: Some 180+ souls answered the call to go to Naperville on the ”chance” that there would be an apparition of a Melchizadeck. Why? Why only 180? With some 400,000 Urantia Books out, only 180 took the chance of ridicule. If Christ Michael sent us a letter or a revelation, indicted or not, saying that he was going to show up in a pasture in Ohio or Kansas or where ever, how many would show up? For that matter “Would you come follow me.” if He were to ask?
30 Apr 1993 ???Philip Calabrese ?????Brief replys
Subject: Brief replys
?Thea – Thank you very much for your straightforward description of your own attitude and experience concerning the TM. As a personal practice of revelation, I find little to trouble me about these channeling sessions and some appreciation about them. But as a public, “teaching mission” that attracts people partly by offering them inside knowledge and status, that requests permission to “assign spiritual names to people”, that sends transcripts of sessions around for the edification of all, and otherwise “cult”ivates special standing and recognition from the UB readership – these practices trouble me. Jim McNelly – Who”s talking about Urantia excommunication except perhaps Urantia Foundation (before Martin left)? As I understand David Kantor, he just doesn”t want some kinds of things in his own study group. Nor would he participate in certain practices or believe some things. But I don”t hear a call for exclusion from the group as a whole. After all, the differences that we have been discussing are purely intellectual – a difference between how some of us regard the words coming from certain people. But that does not mean that we need to be spiritually separated. I for one would not lend support to such a misguided effort. Neither do I question the sincerity of anyone involved in the TM (any more than I might question the sincerity of those not involved.) Actually, I”ve noticed a lot of kindness and correct attitude on the part of those who take the TM most seriously.
?David, Byron, Dick and Leo and others – Concerning your responses to my suggestion that perhaps we should use this forum partly to gather people together with knowledge and experience to design a “cult”ural vehicle to dramatize and symbolize the essence of the UB message of Jesus, etc. in appealing traditions (rituals):
?What I am calling for is a balance between the values of spontaneous growth of UB “cult”ure and the values of preparation, design and conscious effort in that regard. Neither by themselves, in my opinion, is optimal. In your expressions of preferring to let the culture grow, no one has responded to the fact that even though Nathaniel and David (Zebedee) had a better idea of Jesus” teachings, we are told that they were not as careful to prepare for the future transmission as was Paul, who designed the church family concept and sponsored it. Without an alternative, the Jesus message was carried by Paul”s churches in the forms that we now have it (plus evolution).
?Similarly, today, we are witnessing the formation of rituals of channeling, symbols and signs in the vacuum caused by the understandable disregard of these aspects of the UB revelation by Urantia Foundation and the Fellowship. People have to go to various other organized religions to get the things that they need but are not getting from the study groups, conferences and societies.
?Of course there is a danger of subsequent crystallization. But that is not the only danger. Can we not design a simple, vehicle that embodies the truths in flexible, partially spontaneous forms that will allow for subsequent revision? For instance, organized religion needs an organic process of revision like the scientific method in Science. We can prevent such inflexibility by incorporating carefully designed forms that speak to these values. For example, the Quaker “Friends meetings” have no clergy, allow for anyone to channel the spirit, incorporate spontaneous expressions of truth, and they do these things in a ritualized service that helps Quakers to keep these essentials of personal religion in focus for the people who are not disposed to immediately grasp their true importance. (I have never been to a Quaker meeting but have learned something from Dick about them.)
30 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????brf rspns
Subject: brf rspns
?Thea, I appreciated your comments on the TM which I received this morning. I also appreciate your call to be considered as an individual rather than in terms of a broad generalization which labels a group of people with an abstract concept — this is most reasonable and I will try to keep it in mind.
?The idea of a “teacher mission” seems to be a moving target and seems to mean something different to everyone involved; it also seems change from week to week. Up until several weeks ago, Byron was touting the similarity of the messages from T/R”s around the !world! as confirmation of the validity of his claims. He since appears to have chosen bliss instead of defense of his outlandish claims made hereon and elsewhere.
?What you describe seems very nice indeed. It sounds like a genuine attempt to understand the spiritual realities impinging on your being, and to share that understanding in a group of people. I have no argument with such an approach. But what you describe is very different from people claiming to get messages from Melchizedeks, Bright and Morning Stars — even Christ Michael himself.
?I view such claims of personal contact with these high spiritual administrators as absurd and delusional. There was a period of time when I was considering becoming a psychiatrist. I went to work as a psychiatric aide in a mental hospital for the criminally insane. I had both Jesus and Abraham on my ward. They were both very sincere, very pious, and rather kindly individuals to be around (although Jesus used to whip my butt at chess something terrible). We also had individuals who carried on serious conversations with Mary, Moses, and even God himself. There were folks there who had some of the most spectacular religious experiences you could imagine, but it wasn”t particularly good for them or for some of the individuals with whom they had chanced to come into contact. One of the most peaceful, kind, helpful individuals I new on the ward was a fellow who had had a complete frontal lobotomy — his only problem was that he liked to chew razor blades and someone always had to be with him while he shaved.
?I have hereon also made the point that there is a big difference between getting messages of love and personal spiritual assistance from one”s spiritual benefactors and messages which contain specific cultural information, such as “the Lucifer rebellion has been adjudicated”, or “a second phase of the fifth epochal revelation is being inaugurated.”
?I remain convinced that individuals may be having significant contacts with their spiritual benefactors in their inner lives, but I also remain certain that many of the wild claims being made about these experiences are the result of delusion, ignorance, naivete, uninformed hope and in some cases, excessive use of psychotropic drugs.
30 Apr 1993 ???Dennis Shields ?????road signs
Subject: road signs
?FROM: DENNIS SHIELDS SUBJECT ROAD SIGNS DATE 4 30 93 Aloha logondontors
?First apologies if any of you unnecessarily received my 25k missive twice I called Michael Million who suggested that I re-send it as it was unclear if it had been received the way I had addressed it the first time.
?Secondly in reply to David regarding its length; in one week in march the log file was 190k much of it from you David, are there rules that have been laid down prior to my entering these discussions relating to length, permissible topics, for instance are we not to address questions relative to the TM to you unless they are similarly sarcastic put downs of the TM as was your *sports report Koresh 1 Mac 0* (which I got a chuckle out of anyway)?
?Then there is the issue of forgiveness concerning ten years of put downs to Vern, has any and all good the man has done been regulated to the *file delete column* with only the mistakes left. Wasnt the rise of Martin a inverse proportion to the fall of Vern? What about the issue of forgiveness itself? Do the teachings of Jesus limit forgiveness to only those individuals who have come around to our perception of events and accept forgiveness on *terms*? What about that interesting one liner about Judas that the worlds have found it difficult to forgive him? Does that statement imply that God the Father is so magnanimous and all forgiving that even some one who betrayed Jesus to the cross then took their own life has survived death is on the path to this same Father and his existence acts as a challenge to the worlds beyond to master the lessons of forgiveness?
?Look David we are all only human I have situations in my life where there are individuals whom I feel that before eternity has run out I must forgive and yet I personally have a hard time doing that here an now, I can understand how there are resentments lingering from the ashes of ruin. It just seems to me that there was a great deal of new ground broken by a team effort called FOG to throw the baby out with the bath water seems unproductive to me. Didnt Vern do a great deal of good in the years of service leading up to the crisis in Clayton? I thought that the *on campus * radio interviews were excellent they helped my soul to grow. Didnt they help your soul to grow? Didnt they promote the soul growth of many?
?I am sincerely interested in the recollections of events ten years ago. We in Hawai*i were recipients of predictions of wwIII from three different sources The messages from FOG being the last in the series. I have asked before about the date being 1985 as this does not jive with my personal recollections or the recollections of several around me.
?Heh sista Thea. Wha! you know fo da kine pigin? You one kamaaina or wha?
?Sara couple of questions my understanding of events has it that Patije sent you a private letter regarding her alleged *message to you* your response appeared here prior to her hearing privately from you. Your disavowing being saddened in your response to Patije is somewhat contradicted in your posting a few days ago where you talk of your recovery in terms of going through a grieving process? Im genuinely interested in your, your husbands and Jung”s explanation of the TM as collective consciousness. But even though that may explain it or not, good = good = good and there is good coming from the TM. What of the non-wwIII? If we are still capable of mistakes when we arise on the Mansion World isnt it then implied that those just a little ways a head of us are capable of error? Regarding the accuracies of both the TM and the downfall of FOG we all expect mercy for our shortcommings what margin of error exist in those celestials around us? Doesnt the Lucifer rebellion itself indicate that mistakes are a part of the Heavenly experience as well as the earthly?
30 Apr 1993 ???David Kantor ?????quick note to dennis re: vern
Subject: quick note to dennis re: vern
?Dennis; Just a quick note… No rules, Dennis, just me sqwaking after logging on and finding nearly 100k of messages *at one time* just after seeing my CompuServe statement from last month…I *will do my part* to keep it down — sorry I jumped on your post. Forgiveness: It”s a two way street. If your neighbor comes over and molests your kid, you might be able to forgive your neighbor if your neighbor sought forgiveness, but you would still keep him away from your kid. The forgiveness doesn”t do much good until your neighbor is ready to rehabilitate himself and needs the space which forgiveness provides in order to establish better patterns of living. I think forgiveness is a social phenomena, not simply a personal attitude. But then I don”t think forgiveness is the real issue here. I personally never cared for the ON-CAMPUS radio series because I knew how carefully crafted they were; people were quoted out of context, Vern would splice in his comments from one conversation into a completely different one, just to produce a show. I enjoyed Vern”s discourses very much, though. Note that both the ON-CAMPUS series and the discourse series, were very carefully edited tapes, edited to make just the points Vern wanted to make, and edited to present an Image of Vern which he was carefully constructing. THEY DID NOT REPRESENT REALITY. In many ways they were symbolic of the way Vern ran his life; he worked hard to edit and compile an image which he publically projected while the cutting room floor contained all the *real* material which he didn”t want anyone to see. We”re seriously talking the Wizard of Oz here; yeah, the tin man, lion, et al, *did* get some help. And those of us close to him, I am sorry to admit, worked very hard to help maintain the illusion, simply because we felt the good he was doing outweighed the bad. Boy, was that a mistake! Doing good in one situation does not justify doing evil in another and evaluating one”s life as a sort of balance sheet, yet this is the way he operated. Vern”s magic tricks were a good paradigm for the rest of his public life. One of his favorite stories was how his grandfather would give him a stack of dollar bills and a 100 dollar bill to put on the outside whenever he wanted to impress a girl. He would flash the roll and make it appear that it was a roll of 100”s. This also is paradigmatic of the way he lived his life. Didn”t you ever notice that Vern *never* participated in social events in which he was not in control? Did you ever see him attend workshops at a conference and participate like anyone else? Did you ever see him even sit around in a discussion group and participate like one of us? He was always either in the limelight and in control, or not there lest he be discovered. Don”t you think that David Koresh was an inspiration to his people? How about Jim Jones, or any of the televangelists who carefully craft their personas as tools for political and personal gain? After March 25, 1985, all the FOGers got together and issued a public apology and statement, which we all signed, with the exception of Vern. He refused to even attend a single one of the many post-mortem meetings we held to try and understand what had happened to us. Yeah, the carefully edited tapes were pretty good; if my opinion bothers you, contact some other ex-FOG folks and get some other viewpoints. I don”t care to keep rehashing it.
?Thanks for extending electrantia to the central Pacific.
1 May 1993 ??Philip Calabrese ?????Re: Final Tally!
Subject: Re: Final Tally! In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat May 1 05:08:40 1993
?Good day Logondonters!
?Leo – As someone who came in sixth just behind the Prodigy material in the Final April byte tally, and so is in more danger than I had thought of winning the title of “most verbose”, I do, nevertheless want to expend some of my precious margin from the Byte Leaders to thank you for your consistently delightful good humor in this forum.
?Dennis – “Mistakes are a part of the heavenly experience” – true. But personally, I”d be very disappointed if Mansonia number 1 and Jerusem, let alone the Melchizadek worlds turned out to have the botched appointments and schedules exhibited by the TM teachers with respect to appearances by important personalities. Can you imagine gathering for a visit and being stood up on Jerusem without any word?
1 May 1993 ??Thea Hardy ??????Re: Final Tally!
Subject: Re: Final Tally! In-Reply-To: [9305011838.AA19037@atlantis.CSOS.ORST.EDU]
?Really, I must protest! I have not been around long enough to acrue a final tally of substance. I think we should tally the average message length and see what results are obtained (though I fear I will still not win the Virtual Verbosity award of the Year).
?David – I hope I have not utterly misrepresented myself. I never said that I didn”t believe that some of my messages were from some whose names you have mentionned, nor that I do not think that the adjudication may have taken place. At present, the best explanation I have of what has happened to me is that these things have occurred, however understand that as far as I am concerned, there is no certainty short of the Paradise Father of us all, and if you asked me to swear on a stack of Urantia books that this is absolutely what is taking place, I don”t know that I could. Something is going on. The paradigm of the teaching mission and some (but not all) of its associated phenomena seems to best fit whatever is going on, but as I have said before, it is only a model/ scaffolding as far as I can be _certain_. I would swear that I have _some_ degree more of “contact” with my indwelling spirit and with Michael, but I would not swear to the exact nature of that. I can only interpret my own experience the best that I can. I do share transcripts with those that ask, but have zero interest in proselytization. And I do confirm absolutely that at present, positive fruits are appearing in my own life and the lives of some people close to me. Sorry to belabor this, but it would show lack of courage if I were to allow you to labor under misconceptions about me. I would like you (all) to like me, but not under false pretexts. (BTW, I read with interest and some understanding your comments about Vern”s behaviors. I cannot judge that on a personal basis as I did not know him and only saw him once or twice, but the behaviors which you indicate are in my opinion definitely problematic and do raise red flags for me. I agree with Dennis that forgiveness is always asked for, but I have had enough human experience that I would be slow to judge anyone else”s so-called ability to forgive. Besides, we do these things when we are able to do these things. I have often considered myself a spiritual slowpoke when it comes to some things, yet we do not complain because chrysanthemums do not bloom in the spring like crocuses. We are each on our individual personality paths, and hopefully we will continue to be loving and tolerant of one another?s differences even where we may not be able to celebrate them.) I appreciate your candidness; forgive my belaboring.
?PS I am curious as to what harm would befall a person who believed that the adjudication had taken place… For myself, I feel a hopefulness and a renewed energy to work to further spiritual things. Granted for one who has been in the past very literal about “truth”, I find myself in an odd quandary of acting on the fact that I appear to believe more than I know, and for me that is very new territory indeed, nevertheless, I can think of more harmful things to believe in regards to our blue book. We must certainly believe that it will happen sometime. Believe me, friends, this is an interesting journey for a former literalist.
1 May 1993 ??leo elliott ???????????Science & Magick
Subject: Science & Magick
?Albemarle County, VA May 1, 1993
?I would wish all ex-Communists a joyful and reflective Mayday, all ex-Catholics a joyful welcome to the month of Mary, and all disciples of Rudolf Steiner a happy dance around the Maypole — and reiterate a special welcome to Dan Massey, whose Scientific Symposium II paper on “Engineering — Science and Magick” I just read the other night and found to be most fascinatingly related to some of our recent conversations here.
?Dan, I trust you will find eventual time to correct whatever misrepresentations I may herein convey of your work — perhaps you have an ascii copy available for upload to Michael M”s Alexandrian, er, Arkansan Library? In any case, I would be happy to supply hardcopy to whomever may be interested, assuming the author”s beneficence. (The complete papers are avilable in bound format from the Fellowship.)
?I found the initial discussion of theoretical science sometimes informing more practical engineering very reminiscent of my reading of Bucky Fuller”s life and enterprise. I don”t know how professionals like you Dan, or Phil C., would classify Fuller as a scientist, but he certainly seemed to this layman to be a rather proficient engineer — as you point out Dan, the engineers sometimes seem drawn to discover or invent some device because theoretical science has predicted its possibility (as Fuller did in designing some of his structures to be constructed out of plastics, which had at the time had not been invented yet), and at other times, the engineers avail themselves of practical information that science only later comes to incorporate into its theoretical framework.
?[I wonder how you would fit the discovery of “Buckminsterfullerene” or the “buckyball” carbon molecule into this frame Dan?]
?The distinction is made between science as we have witnessed its development in the West over the last several centuries, and _magick_: “I will use the term _magick_ to characterize these pre-scientific approaches of engineering to achieving control over reality. I have chosen the older spelling of the word, as is common in the Western esoteric tradition, to distinguish it from consciously planned deception, such as prestidigitation… The term _magick_ denotes a relationship between human intention and reality extension. The magickal relationship is hidden from understanding; it is _occult_. Yet the cumulative experience of the individual and the community progressively shows the relationship to be reproducible, implying that it must have a _causal_ foundation. Once this causal foundation has been illuminated, the relationship is no longer occult and is no longer considered magickal. It has become _scientific_.” (p. 25)
?As relates to the material/mechanical level, the citation from UB page 1222, to the effect that “through the intelligent use of the body mechanism, mind can create other mechanisms, even energy relationships and living relationships, by the utilization of which this mind can increasingly control and even dominate its physical level in the universe,” seems to adequately describe the engineer”s approach — build a better mousetrap, and people will flock to your door. Incidentally, this was very much Fuller”s avowed position on the matter as well; he felt that it was futile to try to change or uplift humanity by means of political or religious persuasion. Rather, if you once build a bridge over a chasm separating two groups, the use of this physical device may then enable the conversation in a way that shouting across the canyon never could.
?However, Professor Massey then directs our attention to “the relationship between the intention of will and its extension to mindal realities. Is it not reasonable to expect that there exist ways in which human mindal intention relates directly to human mindal extension? _The Urantia Book_ has much to say about such relationships within the individual personality, but what of the relationship between the mindal levels of several personalities?” — [as in a study group, cult, musical group, church group, club, etc.] Massey continues: “Exactly what is meant by _mind gravity_? What does it mean to _exchange your mind_ for that of Jesus?”
?After citing UB p. 1765, to the effect that our efforts at communication and “enrollment” need to be directed toward “the divine spirit that dwells within the minds of men” (rather than using the “mere weight of logic” or “shrewed eloquence” to browbeat or manipulate), Dan raises a most cogent question, one that relates to our prior discussions here on the nature of inspiration, possibilities for autorevelation, and the processes of creativity and group formation: “Is it possible, however, that there is more to this whole thing than the obvious act of deciding what to say and of saying it?” [“getting the doctrine right,” for the churchly types perhaps, or “getting the words right” for those of a more auto-revelatory bent?] Massey: “Is there some quality of mind which mediates the exchange of viewpoint beyond the information content of the observable utterances?”
?If I read your drift Dan, you are addressing the notion of a possible paradigm shift in how we explain “information at a distance” in somewhat the same way that “motion at a distance” was shifted as we stepped away from the explanations offered by Newtonian mechanics — no? The “distances” referred to in the UB cite on Adam and Eve”s ability to communicate “telepathically” via the “delicate gas chambers located in close proximity to their brain structures” (page 834) may seem small, but your cite to page 845 implies much greater distances that the 50 miles referred to in the Garden passage, and makes me wonder what the revelators would point to as an example of “mental disjunction”:
?(UB page 845): “… Adam and Eve, like their fellows on Jerusem, maintained immortal status through intellectual association with the mind-gravity circuit of the Spirit. When this vital sustenance is broken by mental disjucntion, then, regardless of the spiritual level of creature existence, immortality status is lost. Mortal status followed by physical dissolution was the inevitable consequence of the intellectual default of Adam and Eve.”
?And then we are led to the spatial notion of thought, which has been appearing in our conversational themes here under the various threads discussing personality types, Vonnegut”s “karasses”, Fuller”s “geometry of thinking” and in the work of Gregorc which Jim McNelly recently cited:
?Massey: “I believe that, if you will reflect on these and related statements from _The Urantia Book_, you will find that there is an underlying thread of an idea, which is that there is a finite space of mindal realities. In this space, mental state is defined by a positional metaphor and mental function (state transition) is defined by motion in response to the influences of mind circuits, mind gravity, and individual volition. Let me underscore this view of mind function with an additional quotation, which summarizes and applies the thought.
?UB 155: “Likewise does the Infinite Spirit draw all intellectual values Paradiseward. Throughout the central universe the mind gravity of the Infinite Spirit functions in liaison with the spirit gravity of the Eternal Son, and these together constitute the combined urge of the ascendant souls to find God, to attain Deity, to achieve Paradise, and to know the Father.”
?Massey: “I suggest to you that, within the universe view propounded by _The Urantia Book_, intermindal communication occurs without the mediation of observable physical energy streams modulated by information patterns. I further suggest that, where the transmission of physically detectable information structures (such as speech) appears to enable intermindal communication, the total observed effect also involves the action of _occult_ (hidden or unobserved) mind phenomena. The communication of ideas which occurs when we read _The Urantia Book_ is not simply the decoding of the letters and words on the printed page. Rather, the text serves as a material information carrier which, through the decoding process, affects the state of the electrochemical mind to strengthen the mind gravity grasp of the Spirit.” (page 27)
?Massey: “At the present stage in planetary development our understanding of mind phenomena is decidedly pre-scientific. In spite of the sincere efforts of generations of diligent students, neither psychology nor psychiatry have advanced towards effective, scientific understanding, much less control, of mental phenomena. In fact, neither discipline has succeeded in clearly defining the object of its study. Such epistemological issues as the distinction between the organic brain and the rational mind, to say nothing of the meaning of spirit and personality, continue to be matters of heated philosophical debate. Alchemy was more scientific than this by the time its practitioners had generally agreed to talk about earth, air, fire, and water.”
?Would you be offended Dan, if I placed your estimation here alongside those of Thomas Szasz, Ivan Illich, James Hillman, and Michel Foucault? You all seem to be calling attention to the same state of primitive understanding that we use in our efforts at “psychological engineering” — remembering the quote to the effect that the study of our own religion is theology, the study of everybody else”s is psychology. We say we have left the dark ages of lobotomies and electroshock, but still we have such little notion, in the “secular” world, of a psychologically healthy mode (_pace_ Adler, Assagioli, Maslow, et al.) that our motto-mentality sees psychic health as “just saying no” to drug abuse, with nary a clue as to why humans have been seeking such futile escape from the material domain (or is it access to the mind gravity circuits?) from time immemorial.
?Dan continues: “Notwithstanding this paucity of rational analysis, practitioners of psychology and psychiatry often manage to accomplish useful results. In fact, they do this by _magick_, clothed in a semi-scientific rationale. If their magick appears to be more effective than some other magicks, it is surely because much honest critical effort has been expended to try to discover what magick works and what circumstances allow a magick to work. There are plenty of magicks that work much better than psychology, while still being magickal. Computer program design is, surprisingly, a largely magickal discipline that has worked quite effectively for many years, but is only recently starting to become scientific. To say something is magickal we do not mean that it is imaginary or ineffective. Rather, we mean that it works by an occult process. One does not get something for nothing. It often takes a great deal of effort to make one of these magicks work.”
?Dan concludes with a remarkable scholarly revelation concerning the illustrious Shawnee Tenskwatawa, whom the UB cites on page 988 as among the category of “true prophets and teachers” who “ever and anon” arise to denounce and expose shamanism, which revelation I will leave for Dan to relate, should he be so moved (otherwise, read the article!)
?Again, welcome Dan Massey to the list, and please inform of any errors above in interpretation, oversight, or misrepresentation.
?May May be merry for you all!
2 May 1993 ??MARTIN J. PATTON ???????things magickal
Subject: things magickal
?Leo: Most impressed with Dan Massey as you knew I would be. I do find it unfair to psychologists and psychiatrists to lump them togeather. Psychiatrists that I know are well aware of what they don”t know and send me patients for many asundry of things. Some psychologists also send me those cases that they have attempted and not succeeded. But for the most part psychologists in their training have it in their head that the therapy time for even a simple problem should be as long as the insurance will pay. With this modality in mind the chances of a quick recovery for even simple problems is any where from 20 visits of 50 minutes to 3-6 years if the patient doesn”t get tired coming.
?But, I agree with Dan! Those therapists who use the magickal tools that the Infinite Spirit bestowed on us get great results. It is really encourging to work with a person under hypnosis, because some important things happen. Once the person allows his conscious mind to be set aside and enters into an altered state of ”alpha” (14 to 6 brain wave cycles per second), he is able to process within the subconscious at an increased speed of from 8 to 20 times faster than when in the fully conscious state ”beta” (34 to 14 bwc/s). In true effect we can create change, handle obsessions, release oppressions and bring a person to a quality of life that exceeds that which they had prior to the problem. It is also wonderful to work with the releasement of the fear, anger, and guilt that has created the ”wrong mindedness” that brought them in the door. But you don”t do these things in a fifty minute hour!
?We on the boards use a shorthand BTW. This BTW is unique in my practice many times, I”d be all finished with a client and they have their hand on the door knob and they start off with “BTW, I was going to commit suicide last night, but I thought I”d wait until we had our session today!” Now I have got to tell you ladies and gentlemen that takes you back! Because the first question out of my mouth is “How do you feel about that, NOW!” Or the BTW might be simpler, “BTW, I was going to leave (kill, sue, stab, etc) my jerky (my word) spouse but I thought I”d wait until after our session.
?I must also agree that communication occurs easily through other means than written or verbal or sign. There are times [G] when I sit down with a client or patient and I don”t have the foggiest idea of what to say or how to help them become ”right minded”. I close my eyes look up to the crown of my head and ask the Holy Spirit mentally and always do I get the right response that helps that person. WOW! Sometimes, after a session, I just review the tape and wonder how that information got there!
?I think the time for debate is over. Every couple of years I travel out to an osteopathic school and go over this for the students who are going out to do the externships. Now, with the help of folks like Bill Moyer and his TV and book on Using Your Mind For Healing, we are seeing people who are looking for supportive (NOT alternative) thearpies that address issues quicker. [VBG] You know if you have just been told that you have an inoperable cancer, and a psychologist says that the modality will take 2 years, is it magickal?
?BTW, Dan we are getting to measure somethings scientifically that here to fore were only “imagined” ie. We now can measure endorphins, neuropeptides, and other healing responses such as T-cells and B-cells by just having a person visualize or imagine them selves in a place of rest or a rememberance of a wonderful happening in their life. The change is measured in 1/100 of a sec.
?BTW, Leo lobotomies are passe but they are still shocking folks everyday!
?SO, as a practicer of the occult mind phenomena, who has believed that the mind is in every cell not just in the brain (Was taught that by an old monsignor (He also founded the NFL, but that”s another story) when I was a kid of 15 and never forgot it), I am pleased to be in such good company. [NOW if I wrote this on *P, David S would say I was evil, ??]
2 May 1993 ??David Kantor ?????Responses
?Good evening, Friends…
?Thea, I appreciated your recent comments and clarifications.
?I certainly cannot objectively evaluate the *experiences* of those who claim to be T/Rs, but I do feel it”s valid to question *claims* that are made about the reported content of those experiences.
?I do not consider personal experience a valid starting point for developing a universe philosophy. *That which is being evaluated cannot be the same as that which is doing the evaluation*. I think there must be an external referent outside the domain of personal subjectivity to assure integrity.
?When people claim they are receiving specific information about such things as the status of the Lucifer rebellion, etc, something is not right. Whether or not the rebellion has been adjudicated is not the issue. *** The issue is that implicit in such a claim is an entirely new theory of how knowledge is acquired,*** and such “automatic” acquisition of knowledge is inconsistent with anything I know to be true about the nature of reality.
?Enhanced contact with one”s indwelling spirit and indeed with Jesus himself should be the lot of all who pursue the spiritual life. But *spiritual insight* is a completely different commodity than knowledge. If you tell me that you”re getting insight into how you can more effectively live your life and function in your relationships, I would applaud that, and expect such to be the result of a growing spiritual life.
?But when you tell me that you are receiving actual knowledge about historical time/space circumstances which originates outside the domain of your human consciousness, that is *a completely different phenomenon* and in my opinion all such claims are errors.
?It is not simply a matter of some new circuits having been opened up. What we are talking about would be an entirely new type of human being, depending on something other than adjutant spirit mind techniques for knowledge acquisition — I don”t think this is likely to be happening. This would radically alter what it means to be a human being in some very profound ways.
?My reading of the UB leads me to believe that adjutant mind spirit ministry is intimately tied up with the mindal activation of biological life, and its relationship to the biochemical nervous system is well documented in the UB. A universe mechanism which would allow for the replacement of adjutant mind functioning is inconceivable to me. My take is that even on a level of cellular biochemistry, the adjutant mind spirits are functioning — they are integral components of the mortal biological experience.
?The acquisition of knowledge, *facts* about material and spiritual reality, seems to be a function of learning throughout the universe. I doubt that the universe would be constructed along the lines of a gigantic school where we gain knowledge by laborious effort and experience if such automatic transfer of knowledge from spirit sources as some of the T/M statements indicate were indeed possible.
?Again, the T/M is a moving target and it is difficult to formulate a response to something which seems to be a subjectively different reality for each individual who claims to be a part of it. There are no stated philosophic premises or even doctrinal statements which can be evaluated in any way. It appears to be a morass of subjectivity whose validity is sought in nothing more than an appeal to an incompletely formed idea of the Spirit of Truth. It encompasses everything from claims to enhanced spiritual growth to claims of having pet midwayers who repair computers and appliances, all of which have been posted hereon.
?Incidentally, Dennis, I was not being sarcastic with my report on the Macfailure; Byron Belitsos was the one, I believe, who after consulting a T/R, was spreading the word that the Davidians had so polluted the planetary spiritual atmosphere that the materialization could not occur. Correct me if I”m wrong, Byron.
?”Hope you”re all having a great weekend.
2 May 1993 ??Matthew Rapaport ?????????????observations from personal exp
Subject: observations from personal experience
?Well so much has flowed over this list I can hardly contain it all from day to day. I read only cursorily, but the following caught my eye…
?By the way Leo… I did get the Sabatier MS, thanks… I am reading it albeit slowly.
?Thea Hardy [hardyt@ATLANTIS.CSOS.ORST.EDU]
?>I never said that I didn”t believe that some of my messages were from >some whose names you have mentioned, nor that I do not think that the >adjudication may have taken place.
?Personally Thea, I think your”s is one of the more interesting perspectives of those participating in this list. As David has said, one of the problems with the TM (philosophically and psychologically) is that there are so many different variations in the personal experience of the T/R. But you say that for now the paradigm of the TM best fits your experience. Perhaps there are alternatives that are more satisfying but have not yet been explored. Perhaps that is something positive this collection of talent can provide…
?>PS I am curious as to what harm would befall a person who believed that >the adjudication had taken place…
?Well I”ll take a different tack here then David… The problem Thea is admittedly rather abstract and indirect. The present status of the rebellion and its promulgators has implications, albeit indirectly, for the political evolution of this planet. We might expect events to go somewhat differently (historical events) if we *knew* for a fact that the spiritual government and all its communications were re-established. Now admittedly the actual relationship between such enhanced circuits and our own socio-political situation is a matter of speculation anyway, so this kind of statement seems to me pretty nebulous with respect to any noticeable (by our own reporters/historians) effect on our political evolution. On the other hand, going to some distant city to witness the appearance of Michael or some other being might not be in the best interest (economically, psychologically) of some hypothetical TMer who otherwise has no external criterion by which to judge that one statement (Lucifer extinguished) is true while the other (Michael will appear on X date) is false.
?Now David… You”ve done a wonderful job to this point but…
?>I do not consider personal experience a valid starting point for >developing a universe philosophy.
?What??? It is the *ONLY* genuine starting point that *YOU* (the personality that is David Kantor) have! Kant pretty much dealt with that 200 years ago!
?>*That which is being evaluated cannot be the same as that which is >doing the evaluation*.
?Well, the evaluator must transcend, in some relevant way, the thing evaluated. In our present form, we can not transcend mind, so it is true we can not ever effectively evaluate it, but the content of its experience is to some degree subject to our evaluation because we are PERSONAL mind, and personality DOES transcend mind.
?>I think there must be an external referent outside the domain of >personal subjectivity to assure integrity.
?The history of philosophy is strewn with the wreckage of those who have tried to pin down that which is necessary or sufficient to “assure” integrity. A discussion of this would be an interesting thread in its own right. There are mailing lists for epistemological discussions, but I think our perspective (having the UB) would enable us to explore this in novel ways…
?>When people claim they are receiving specific information about such >things as the status of the Lucifer rebellion, etc, something is not >right… The issue is that implicit in such a claim is an entirely new >theory of how knowledge is acquired,*** and such “automatic” acquisition >of knowledge is inconsistent with anything I know to be true about the >nature of reality.
?Oh come on now… strictly speaking knowledge has been acquired in this way from time to time in history… John”s (the Baptist) prophecy could be considered something similar, and there were genuine visions (John the Apostle), and probably others. Come to think of it, why should the assertion that the rebellion is ended have any less valid status (in your view here) then those [statements] of the UB that tell us it has not? My point is not to blur the difference in the mechanisms here (the intellectual process that goes on in reading vs. bolt from the blue), but this kind of knowledge (more correctly this particular belief) has hardly any practical effect one way or another… Now an assertion containing the next numbers to come up in the California lottery would be a different matter entirely…
3 May 1993 ??Michael Million ????From J.McNelly: Grounder to Ka
Subject: From J.McNelly: Grounder to Kantor
?I too am very much enjoying your contributions hereon. I can”t recall ever enjoying the socialization of religionists more. It seems that if we just keep evolving, the form and structure will follow. I sense something _alive!_ happening.
?About the inconsistency question. I do recognize the apparant dichotomy between acceptance of the TM people in one paragraph and such intolerance of Ernie Moyers and others in the next one. You ask. “Are not the Ernie Moyers, David Strangs, Martin Meyers, et. al. of the world simply pursuing an integration of the UB into their lives in their own way to the best of their ability as are the TM people and as are (hopefully) you and I?”
?As most logondonters have not had the 2 years I have had in trying to reconcile with David Strang on Prodigy, which is different from UrantiaL in that we are out in the public marketplace with new readers recruited from passersby. Most of you have not been subjected to David”s street corner preaching full of accusations and pronouncements. In that regard, I accept the outsider”s natural inclination to suspend judgment while awaiting evidence.
?But after having had over one third of the members on Prodigy, which we call the “Monitor Study Group” leave in disgust from being ruthlessly and relentlessly attacked by Strang. I have decided to become “intolerant of intolerance”. Strang has not only repeatedly attacked and harrassed first time posters, he has launched endless private e-mail tirades on ANYONE who does not conform to his “Grand Inquisitor” style of dogmatism. No one is safe from his spiritual predator attacks. In his case, I am like the citizens of Jerusem who no longer have patience or sympathy for such a troubled soul.
?I did not take the time to find the exact quote, but it is akin to idealists not allowing themselves to be exterminated by vicious minorities. Mr Strang is _seriously_ mentally disturbed. While I can pity him, the disruptive force he exerts upon the gentle fields of study is intolerable. I do not share the same “intolerance of intolerance” toward Warren Wolf, another anti-TM poster on Prodigy or any of the postings I see here on UrantiaL. When the discussion is civil, two way, and reasoned, I welcome the debate.
?The question is not so much that I care what people believe or don”t believe, but that they desire to impose their view upon others using spiritual force. I admit to my own religious extremism tendencies and the proclivity to use “extreme case” scenarios to make a point, but I consent to the rules of Cymboyton. Page 1486 “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.”
?Strang has been voted off the Prodigy board, to no avail, by ALL the other participants if he continues to attack others so brutally. There have been some gentle souls only a week into the book who have been brought to tears the very first day posting. I would like to think that Strang is an exception, but the fact that he is there so vehemently in the public abusing people is a warning to all future public BBS conferencing. Any board that does not allow for “twit” or “bozo” filters (their terms) will quickly degenerate into social chaos. There are less than 10 regular posters left on Prodigy down from 60 and 90% of the discussions are what to do about Strang.
?About Moyers and others, I was perhaps unfair in the blanket association of them with an obviously dysfunctional soul like Strang. With them, it is not so much their intolerance that I am intolerant of, but the next Cymboyton rule of page 1487 “The Urmia religionists lived together in comparative peace and tranquility because they had fully surrendered all their notions of religious sovereignty….They well knew what would happen to any teacher who would presume to lord it over his fellow teachers. There can be no lasting religious peace on Urantia until all groups freely surrender all their notions of divine favor, chosen people, and religious sovereignty.”
3 May 1993 ??Michael Million ????From J.McNelly: Grounder to Ka
Subject: From J.McNelly: Grounder to Kantor Part 2
?I again admit to a strong streak of righteous indignation, that I believe comes from my mother”s Polish anti-Bolshevick freedom loving stock. The fur on the back of my neck hackles when I run into would be ecclesiastics who claim some special status and would excommunicate persons for their beliefs or practices. My problem with their intolerance is the objection to their seeking to impose their beliefs upon others under threat by claiming their authority comes from a higher source. They are NOT that higher source and I have granted no sovereighty to them whatsoever.
?I can imagine a group where persons do grant sovereighty to a leader, such as Urmia with Cymboyton, Apostles to Andrew, UrantiaL to Million, study group to Host, etc. Then if a person does not agree, they are free to find a group with a different leader. Now if there were a democratic association of believers, of which I claim Urantia Foundation and FEF are not, then that group would be sovereign through the democratic process and “whatsoever they decide, shall be recognized in heaven.” This is the problem I have with Martin Myers and the Executive Committee. They have not earned the right to make such bold pronouncements on belief, faith, and morals.
?The problem with Earnest Moyers is his stepping over the line by claiming that a particular group of believrs is “in league with Caligastia”. I welcome Earnest to join the debate and make his case, of which I agree with many of his points. But when he jumps to conclusions that his interpretation is sanctioned by the Salvington government, then I depart company.
?So David Kantor, my Diogenes quest is for a group where the leader is intolerant of intolerance like Cymboyton or where the group has true democratic circuitry with separation of powers, due process, referundum and initiative, accountability of leaders, constitutional organization, and secret ballot of representatives.
?And you ask, “How do those great one-liners get attached to the end of your posts?” It is one of the pleasures of using an off-line mail reader that automatically provides a space for a tagline. 90% I write myself, the others I steal. The reader has a file full of all the stolen taglines that I can search for an apropo puncutation.
3 May 1993 ??Sara L. Blackstock ???from Bob B.–Response to Respo
Subject: from Bob B.–Response to Response to…
?Greetings Logondonters; this is Bob Blackstock, and it has been a cloudy damp day here in the Bay Area of California, and cool. Summer comes for a day or two and then we slip back into winter!
?The following is a response to Matthew”s response (“Perhaps there are alternatives…”) to Thea”s response (“The paradigm of the TM best describes my experience”) to David K”s response (“!!#%!$#*&!”) to the TM:
?A PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEW OF THE TEACHING MISSION
?I. The channeling activity in the Urantia movement, called the “Teaching Mission” by its supporters, poses an interesting question for those who cannot accept the activity for what it purports to be. Of course, the activity purports to be the opening of the circuits of communication between mortals here on Urantia and the unseen spiritual personalities involved in the guidance of Urantia. The question is: If the “Teachers” are not actual personalities, then *what is going on?* What plausible explanation is there for these manifestations, other than they are what they purport to be? To merely give the activity a label explains little. Statements such as it is “all in the mind,” “split personality,” “alter ego”, etc., without further explanation leaves a thinking person cold, or even disposes him or her to consider the contrary position more seriously. For those who are serious about understanding what is going on with this channeling activity in the Urantia movement, I suggest they take a look at an essay by Carl Jung entitled, “On the Nature of the Psyche,” written in 1954. [“On the Nature of the Psyche,” (1954), published in *The Collected Works of C.G. Jung*, volume 8, pages 159-234. (*The Collected Works* consists of about twenty volumes and each is now available in paperback.)] It deals with the structure and dynamics of what we, as students of the Urantia Book, call the *material mind*, and goes a long way in providing a model for understanding just how “channeled” material manifests in this material mind. Such an understanding is important whether the manifestation is regarded as spiritual in nature or “merely” psychological. It should be kept in mind that everything we humans experience is, in a fundamental sense, psychological, whether inner experience or external stimulus. Furthermore, regarding the inner life, spiritual experience and psychological experience are always a mix, and trying to prove whether a manifestation is one or the other will almost always be an exercise in futility.
?II. It is fairly well known that Jung postulates two areas of the unconscious, a personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. Readers of the Urantia Book will find similarities between Jung”s collective unconscious and the concept of the superconscious referred to in the Urantia Book. As the term implies, the collective unconscious is common to us all, like the air we breath; all of our minds are connected with or in this collective unconscious and thereby share common material. This idea of a common substratum underlying our individual consciousnesses is the key to understanding how something like “The Teaching Mission” can occur. The concept of a *limited* collective unconscious which is unique to the Urantia movement subculture can account for the otherwise perplexing phenomena of manifestations of similar or related material by channelers in different geographical locations. More will be said about this in a minute, but first something should be said about Jung”s collective unconscious and some related concepts. The collective unconscious has different levels: there is a common level for the human race, different levels or areas for the West and for the Orient, Europe has its own collective unconscious, and the nations, clans, even families have theirs. The existence of these various levels of the collective unconscious is well established by the evidence acquired through the study of legends, myths, art, and the religious symbols of separate and distinct cultures. The building blocks or elements that make up the various levels of the collective unconscious are archetypes, basic patterns or inclinations underlying and influencing consciousness. These archetypes are common to all humanity at the broader or deeper levels of the collective unconscious, and become less extensive (less universal) in the newer or less broad levels (as with nations or clans). As inner experiences they often appear as a *subject*, a subject with apparent perception, thinking, feeling, volition and intention; in short, *they often appear as personalities*. We ourselves being personalities, tend to experience these inner mindal patterns (archetypes) as personalities. Over the course of evolutionary development, certain of our experiences, repeated over and over during eons of time, have set down archetypes in the collective unconscious; but in addition, there are archetypes residing in the collective unconscious the source of which is spiritual, established by the Adjutant Mind Spirits. So the archetypes can be seen as a mix of *natural* patterns necessary for adaptation to life”s situations, and *spiritual* patterns urging us forward to higher consciousness. These archetypes, whether spiritual or natural, are energy charged, and under certain conditions, such material does not merely influence and guide us unconsciously, but may manifest or erupt into consciousness.
?III. Over the past several decades, starting with Dr. Sadler and the early forum, there has developed a subculture or “clan” of readers of the Urantia Book, and others who accept the book but may not read it that much. If various races, nations and even families have their own collective unconscious, it follows that in the Urantia movement subculture there is developing a collective unconscious around the concepts and information in the Urantia Book. This can be thought of as a *limited* collective unconscious, unique to the Urantia movement, and not found in the general culture. So readers of the Urantia Book have their own, unique, collective unconscious. Of course, their minds are also related and connected to the general collective unconscious, the basic substratum or foundation of all people”s minds. >From the study of various mystical and religious practices, we know that archetypal material does erupt into consciousness from time to time among all peoples. However, among people in the Urantia movement subculture there is a greater potential for such eruptions, because of the enormous wealth of concepts and images provided in the Urantia Book, and the affinity between them and archaic, energy laden archetypes in the collective unconscious. The factor which gives the erupting material a sense of validity or intellectual credibility, is the establishment among the readers of the Urantia Book a framework of concepts, including, for example, the concept of a celestial planetary government; such concepts and images provide *hooks* in the conscious mind, hooks upon which the erupting unconscious material may attach. This framework or belief system, this “collective *consciousness*” of the Urantia Book clan is the top end of the process, the process of energy laden archetypes coming up from the collective unconscious, which is common to us all, through the clan”s own collective unconscious, and attaching to and infusing their energy in the images and concepts presented in the Urantia Book. I might mention that the two upper levels, the Urantia clan”s collective unconscious, and its collective consciousness are somewhat fluid, and interchanging. What is conscious one day in an individual may be unconscious the next, and something similar occurs on collective levels. These two levels unique to the Urantia movement might be thought of as one ball of wax, but with the top extremely conscious and the bottom totally unconscious. The point is, in trying to apply Jung”s model, it is helpful to think in terms of three levels: (1) the deep collective unconscious, with its archaic, energy laden material; (2) the Urantia movement”s collective consciousness at the top; and (3) an intermediate limited collective unconscious bridging the gap, or opening the path or “channel” between the archetypes and consciousness.
?IV. One result of this process is that, just *knowing* about the Book, and maybe having read it only a little, or merely hearing of the concepts and information in it, can create in a person an acceptance of, and strong sense of reality in, the belief system of the Urantia movement; and by his or her embracing that belief system, embracing the collective *consciousness* of the Urantia movement, there opens in the person a pathway for material to start moving up from the unconscious, and attach energy to these conscious ideas; and thus new readers or people with little knowledge of the content of the Book may be channelers, and material pours forth which they have not necessarily acquired consciously. In the literature reported by William James, Jung, and others about channeling or para-psychological phenomena, a number of cases can be found wherein individuals in different geographical locations independently produce related material; for example, different individuals will channel separate parts of a single message. So under certain conditions, identical or similar material will manifest in people in different geographical locations, independent of cause and effect. What conditions? Often a tense environment, impending disaster, or heightened expectation, will be found in connection with such group manifestations. Just the *existence* of the Urantia Book and believing in its reality, may be enough to create such a charged environment. The collapse of the relationship between the Urantia Foundation and Brotherhood, and the removal of the Book from normal distribution channels, among other developments in the Urantia movement, may have been the precipitating events for the channeling activity we have been witnessing.
3 May 1993 ??Matthew Rapaport ?????????????observations on Jim M. and Bob
Subject: observations on Jim M. and Bob B.
?>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jim Mcnelly)
?>The notion of “teachings” implies an interpreter, a middle person, an >ecclesiastical “teaching prioritizing” group. I asserted that the “Book >as a whole” was the only true teaching and that people should make up >their own minds what section, quotes, or parts were of value to them.
?Well this is a frequently vented extreme view. Not that I”m a big fan of the UFnd by the way, but dispite the germ of truth in that first sentence, there are a class of teachings that we are specifically *authorized* to us. That is, the UB itself encourages our creative “interpretation” in passing these “teachings” along to as many as we can. I refer of course to the fundamentals of the Gospel and the means by which we illustrate it. The “…book as a whole…” is *not* the *only* “…true teaching…” This does in no way *excuse* the Foundation its behavior going as far back as the late 60”s it appears. I merely point out that there is a “mission” or “mandate” if you will that does not *directly* depend upon the particulars of book distribution.
?More significantly perhaps, I”m not aware that the Fnd. ever told the individuals of the Bhood that they should not tell people about the Book? People who would then be free to get it at a library or bookstore. Yes the Fnd. finally got really off the wall on this issue, but not until the fairly recent past, and that due almost 100% to Martin”s breakdown. The issue was always over price and style of distribution, and there formidable reasons in favor of the Fnds general plan here (I”m referring here to the basic idea of spread by word-of-mouth) with the book available through the most general and innocuous commercial channels. As for price, the bottom line was and remains money! Setting asside for a moment the considerable sum the Fnd. spends on legal services, if you want the Fnd. to suppress the price normally associated with the distribution channel you must capitalize it.
?>But after having had over one third of the members on Prodigy,… >leave in disgust from being ruthlessly and relentlessly attacked by >Strang. I have decided to become “intolerant of intolerance”.
?Alas this is one of the problems of life online (like real life too, except he can”t shoot you). In the end, if there are enough complaints (directly by mail from the people being harassed to Prodigy), you can get the Prodigy powers-that-be to pull his account. That is your last option. Personally, I agree 100% with your philosophy here. The UB”s teaching here breaks a vicious cycle that emerges from the philosophy that ”tolerance” implies/entails ”tolerance of intolerance”. It is an illogical assumption… This kind of behavior has happened on many systems over the years. It has happened here on the Internet as well, indeed it happens now as we speak, probably more then once among the thousands of conferences and lists that go on here in the Internet. About the only thing we do have (I”m speaking collectively) is longer experience with these things. We are somewhat inured to it. Our Internet mail readers *do* have bozo filters. It is a price you pay (once in a while) for being online though… You might let people know that this kind of sh** just happens from time to time, even to the nicest of discussion groups…
4 May 1993 ??David Kantor ?????Kant figure it out, Matthew!
Subject: Kant figure it out, Matthew!
?Good Evening, Friends…
?Matthew, thank you for your comments contained in your post of May 2. One of the advantages of a forum such as this is that people such as yourself with specialized knowledge are available for comments and criticism. I had the privilege of attending a study group with Jeff Wattles (now Professor of Philosophy at Kent State University) for many years. Jeff did a good job of reeling us in when reason tended to give way to rhetorical enthusiasm, and I appreciate you taking time to respond when you see things going by that seem questionable.
?I must condition my response by up-front admitting to a lack of background in philosphy. I have not taken the time to read Kant”s material, although I attempted an assualt on “Critique of Pure Reason” a couple of times and didn”t make it through. So my understanding of Kant is very partial and limited to the views of other writers.
?But ignorance doesn”t prevent me from wanting to jump in here and respond to your comments. We either have a misunderstanding of semantics and usage, or I may be wandering out in space (once again) on the issues you mention. So I take a chance here, but, as you said earlier, we can let our hair down here, no? Truly, the topic cries out for more disciplined consideration than can be given here.
?In spite of his articulation of a “moral imperative” and the impact which his ideas continue to have on theology, I see Kant as pretty much a materialist. My interpretation of him is that he essentially treats God as just another object albeit a transcendent object. Kant”s “rational faith” does little more than make plausible a belief in the certainty of God”s existence. His differentiation between the “phenomenal” world and the “noumenal” world seems to be only one of degree. In Kant, I see the Universal Father reduced to a “practical presupposition” — NOT very inspiring.
?In my limited understanding of Kant, I see him simply expanding the domain of enlightenment cosmology to include morality and a justification for the possibility of the existence of God. I think that Kant”s shortcomings are clearly seen in Schleiermacher”s excesses. Note that for all his efforts to ground philosophy in personal spiritual experience, Schleiermacher takes a direct hit from the revelators. They reward him with a laser-guided bomb down his conceptual chimney on page 66, first paragraph under section 4, where they nuke his well-developed concept of “absolute dependence” with one short sentence and no further commentary.
?How do you compare Kant”s concept of experience with a statement such as that on page 1123, “What is human experience? It is simply any interplay between an active and questioning self and any other active and external reality…?” The point I am trying to make is that in the UB, the emphasis is on *relationship* rather than the experiencing mechanism. Yes, Kant may have dealt with this 200 years ago but I don”t think he did much to permanently settle the issue.
?So what about the specific claims I made which drew your ire? Yes, I believe that personal experience is *not* a valid starting point for developing a universe philosophy. Why do I say this? To me, the first task of philosophy is to identify some reality which can serve as an ontological ground from which one may infer certain things about how to live, how to bring the divine into every-day live, how to treat other people, etc. What is that ground? Personal experience? No, No, No! That ground is the *fact* of the *relationship* between the mortal and the Universal Father. That is the central presupposition of my existence — everything else is constructed upon the assumption of the validity of that primal relationship — and the *fact* of that relationship is made known to mind via revelation while its value is made available to personality by faith.
?Yes, philosophy *is* strewn with the wreckage of attempts to establish external referents for the construction of a personal philosophy of religion, but the life of Jesus clearly reveals the validity of utilizing the relationship between the mortal and the Father as that foundation. Just because people have continually selected transient and illusory realities for the foundations of their metaphysics and philosophies does not invalidate the idea that somewhere in the cosmos there might be a valid metaphysics or an integrated philosophy.
?In my mind one of the greatest contributions of quantum physics to our task of philosophic theology is the clear demonstration that no observation is made independent of influence by the observer. For an individual to construct a religious philosophy on the personal (internal subjective) observation of their own inner processes is a recipe for disaster. This is what I mean when I say that personal experience which references only itself cannot be a valid starting point.
?Second only to our relationship with God are our relationships with other people. Here our personal religious philosophy is being constantly modified by the repercussions of our interactions with other personalities — even the continuing development of one”s philosophy is dependent on this external stimulation. I think this is one of the big reasons for Jesus” emphasis on service — we need to be out there in the arena with lots of other different personalities so that we are constantly encountering reality in a way which forces us to continually modify our assumptions and operating principles in a positive way. Keep in mind that the *training* worlds that we have to go through simply to qualify to get in the door to Paradise are comprised of 1 billion worlds, each with a completely different civilization and culture.
?So I see the whole process as just that — a process. A sufficient philosophy cannot be built solely upon personal experience any more than it can be built solely upon the object of consciousness — it seems to me that it must contain components of each along with a healthy dose of insight into the relationship between the two.
?How”s this for a starting point for developing a philosophy of human existence? Page-196:
?”Self-consciousness is in essence a communal consciousness: God and man, Father and son, Creator and creature. In human self-consciousness four universe-reality realizations are latent and inherent: 1. The quest for knowledge, the logic of science. 2. The quest for moral values, the sense of duty. 3. The quest for spiritual values, the religious experience. 4. The quest for personality values, the ability to recognize the reality of God as a personality and the concurrent realization of our fraternal relationship with fellow personalities.”
?Life *is* relationship, and Kant appears to totally miss this fact.
?Your comments re the acquisition of knowledge…complex issue! But don”t you agree that there is a big difference between the comprehensive vision reported by John and the isolated declarations represented by the claims to which I referred in my previous post? One must also consider the kind of “knowing” to which Martin Patton refers as a component of his professional practice.
?Don”t you think the adjutant mind spirit model of mediated mind in the UB is a major new idea (one of the revealed sets of data)? I think this concept radically alters the epistemological landscape and provides a fertile ground from which substantial new philosophical and even theological developments will emerge over many generations. Note that in the UB, the Spirit of Knowledge is considered the “consort” of the Spirit of Courage and the Spirit of Council. I find this *fascinating* — courage implying individual strength and council implying acquisition of knowledge in the context of a community of some sort — but all three of them being presented as critical components of “knowing”. ….so much we don”t know.
End Part 3