March 16, 2000

Friends,

I am withdrawing my suggestion that we ask Dave Elders to represent the

Fellowship in this meeting. However, I feel some further comment is in

order. Dave’s posting of an article from the NY Times, along with his

attached comments, has been interpreted as evidence of a continuing

“hostile” attitude towards the Fellowship. I do not believe this is

correct; in fact, in my opinion, the opposite would be closer to the truth.

Every human being is a dynamic work in progress. The only thing that remains

the same about them from day to day is their unique, god-bestowed

personality. All else is in motion. To the degree that we insist on viewing

any person as static, accurate appreciation will be impossible and

misunderstandings will multiply. Stereotypes and abstractions will not serve

us or the work we do well. My opinion of Dave is based on direct

communication with him in real time, not on some static image of him

(positive or negative) that I hold from the past. For those of you who are

so disposed, I recommend that you call Dave and ask him directly why he

posted that article, and what he intended to communicate by his comments. I

would hope that we would accord to others the same courtesy and fairness

that we ourselves would desire were we in the same circumstance. But you

know all of this.

Now, continuing with business, we still have several unresolved matters to

consider in preparation for this meeting. It may be necessary to hold

another conference call to settle these matters.

1. Who will attend on behalf of the Fellowship.

2. Where in Chicago will the meeting take place.

3. How long will the meeting last.

4. What will the agenda be.

1.  Who will attend on behalf of the Fellowship?

Some feel that we agreed to send only three, not five. I do not agree with

this impression. I think it would weaken us in this encounter. This meeting

may be difficult, perhaps exhausting. Five can share the load more

effectively than three. In addition, five gives us a greater depth of

resources to perceive and respond to what is presented. Think of it as a war

in which the opposing side was shooting at you. Would you deliberately

choose to have fewer soldiers than they do? In any case, we need further

suggestions about the composition of our group.

2.  Where in Chicago will the meeting take place?

I suspect none of us find meeting at “533” acceptable. Unless there are any

objections I will suggest we rent neutral space in a hotel. Should the

Fellowship offer to pay for the space?

3.  How long will the meeting last?

I am undecided about his. Clearly, we don’t want to subject ourselves to two

days of self-righteous lecturing . On the other hand we don’t want to close

off legitimate potentials for progress.

4.  What will the agenda be?

Georges, in his letter, describes his committee as appointed by the

Foundation to discuss copyright and trademark concerns with the Fellowship.

I think we are agreed that our representatives are not empowered to commit

the Fellowship to any agreement in these or any other matters. They are

authorized only to collect information and report back.

We can reasonably expect to hear a litany of complaints and appeals, some of

which we can easily predict, and others that may be new to us. Should that

happen, it may be a challenge to remain calm and avoid falling in to a

contest of accusations and condemnations.

Are there other matters that we wish to raise for discussion? If so, please

suggest them.

In this connection, I should mention that I have been engaged in a careful

analysis of Matthew Block’s discoveries. As a result of this work, it is now

clear to me that, as the world would understand it, substantial portions of

The Urantia Book have been systematically plagiarized from the works of

human authors. For example, virtually all of paper 160 ­ Rodan of

Alexandria ­ is taken from a work entitled The Issues of Life by Henry

Wieman. I have prepared materials which I believe can demonstrate this

conclusively, even to a member of the flat earth society.

Assuming I am present at this meeting, I can raise this matter with Georges

and his associates. I do not believe they have any idea of the extent of

this matter. In fact no one, other than Matthew Block and me, seems to have

any intimate familiarity with this subject.

My nearness to this subject may be distorting my sense of its significance

to our work. Of course I knew that much of the content of The Urantia Book

was based upon “more than one thousand human concepts representing the

highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and

universe meanings.” But I never suspected that the form in which these

concepts had been used could be characterized, by normal standards, as

systematic plagiarism. I have no idea how this discovery will affect the

future of our work, but it is difficult for me to believe that its impact,

when it becomes more fully appreciated, will be anything less than profound.

In any case, I am prepared to raise this matter with Georges and his

associates, if they are willing to look at it. I have no idea what role, if

any, it might play in the Foundation’s thinking about copyright matters. One

would expect that it would give them pause, at a minimum.

Janet and I have spoken and agreed that as of today she will resume

management of this discussion. She will be posting her recommendations

shortly.

Regards,

Steve