HOITE CASTON
August 22, 1989
Mr. David N. Elders
President
Urantia Brotherhood
143 Five Mile River Road
Darien, CT 06820Dear David,
Even though you have not attempted to contact me personally, either before or after the July 21, 1989, letter that you initiated from the Executive Committee of Urantia Brotherhood to the Urantia Foundation Trustees, I feel that it is important that I share with you some of my personal reactions, as an individual Trustee, to what you have done.
After having read and considered your February 1, 1989, letter to the Trustees concerning your views on Martin's leadership; been given a detailed written report on the personally vindictive tone of your conversations with Urantia Foundation attorney Quin Frazer about your plans for a legal attack on Martin and the Foundation; and heard a description of your engineering of the proceedings at the "emergency" meeting of the Executive Committee, it is clear to me that you are the principal author and guiding spirit behind this recent letter and that you should be held personally accountable for the whirlwind of rumors, abuse, and misunderstanding unleashed by it.
To say that I am greatly saddened and deeply disturbed by your choice of action is an understatement. As Martin's friend, it hurts me to see the personal pain caused him by this patently unfair and distorted assault on his character and, through him, the integrity and independence of Urantia Foundation. As a Trustee of Urantia Foundation and a member of Urantia Brotherhood I am outraged at this perversion of justice by the Executive Committee. I cannot see how anyone could, in good conscience, characterize as "thoughtful deliberation" the actions of a self‑styled inquisition that was convened under a lynch mob mentality; that considered unfounded rumors, personal assumptions, hearsay, and one‑sided testimony as "evidence"; and that took it upon itself to be prosecutor, judge, and jury with a predetermined verdict of "guilty as charged." Such behavior would not even meet the most minimal standards of the Brotherhood's own removal procedure, much less the spiritual standards you seek to impose on Martin's actions.
Where was there any sense of fairness in this whole process?
Who were Martin's accusers and what specifically did they say?
Who was there to balance the testimony of "old guard" individuals long known to have harbored personal grudges against Martin because of run‑ins with him over unpopular, but necessary, policy stands he has had to lead the Foundation in taking?
Who was there to tell fair minded Executive Committee members that the recently resigned Trustees did not leave in a mass protest, but that each resigned for a variety of personal and philosophical reasons?
Who was there to question the views of Helena Sprague, one of the former Trustees in attendance, who, following a consensus decision by all of the four other Trustees, was asked to submit her resignation almost a year ago, because her actions had become an impediment to the proper functioning of the board?
Who was there with the knowledge to effectively challenge the comments of Frank Sgaraglino, the other former Trustee in attendance, who, in the course of the Foundation's Ad Hoc Committee consideration of your first letter about Martin, joined Gloriann Harris, the third recently resigned Trustee, in stating that Martin's temper outbursts were not of major concern to him and did not disqualify Martin from being President of the Foundation?
Who was there to balance the "testimony" of Frank by relating that, after Frank had promised to commit himself to a one year trial of the Ad Hoc Committee's new organizational and operational plan for the Foundation, he reneged on that commitment at the first disagreement with Martin on the interpretation of the plan? Frank, as I see it, chose not to work out his differences with Martin, either personally or at a meeting of the Board, but avoided confronting the issue by submitting his resignation, which, in turn, helped to trigger the resignation of Gloriann.
Did Frank tell this "thoughtful and deliberate" body that he has yet to tell Martin, either in writing, face to face, or over the phone, the specific reasons behind his resignation?
Did either Frank or Helena say that, during the almost three years the five Trustees were together, the results on almost every vote taken on policy matters, including the C.U.B.S. litigation, and on all votes to elect Board officers, were a unanimous 5 to 0?
Did anyone point out at the "emergency" meeting that the three resigned Trustees made up a majority on the Board and that if Martin's conduct was as objectionable as your letter alleges, they could have voted him out of the presidency at will and even initiated procedures for his removal from the Board?
Did Frank tell the group that, as part of implementing the new Ad Hoc Committee organizational plan, Martin said that he would resign from the presidency if any two of the three members of the Ad Hoc Committee requested him to do so? And did Frank tell you that he was never able to muster that one, additional vote?
Did Frank or Helena mention the fact that at the April 22, 1989, meeting of the Foundation, which occurred after the Ad Hoc Committee consideration of the charges of your first letter, they had joined in a unanimous vote to re‑elect Martin as President? If Martin was fit to serve at that time, what has he done since then that has been so heinous as to deserve this "emergency" demand for his resignation?
Who was there to relate the provocative statements or duplicitous actions by others that might have been the cause of Martin's alleged "inappropriate" behavior or "mistrust" of certain people?
Did you reveal to the Executive Committee that your current attack on Martin had its genesis in the heated exchange you had with him over your objections to his personal encouragement and/or discouragement of the participation of certain individuals in the Foundation‑sponsored Finnish translation of The Urantia Book and in the organization and leadership of the Foundation‑licensed new Finnish Urantia Society? Did you share with the group that Martin's position was based on some 14 years of personal involvement in the nurturing and support of the many dedicated students responsible for making the translation and the new Society possible? Did you also explain that you personally championed an individual that was not supported by the overwhelming majority of the Finnish Society members, and that you tried to discourage the participation of the individual that was eventually elected to lead this important new group? And did you share with the Executive Committee the following excerpt from an unsolicited February 11, 1989, letter of thanks to Urantia Foundation that was signed by all of the freely elected Finnish Urantia Society officers?:
“The Governing Board of the Finnish Urantia Society, which is to be installed this June, wishes to express and voice its and their high esteem and deep appreciation for the invaluable cooperation and assistance and help we have received from Martin W. Myers, the President of the Urantia Foundation. Without his devotion and concern, we are afraid, the whole undertaking of forming and establishing a Urantia Society in Finland had very likely derailed, and finally withered away. Ever mindful of our local autonomy, ever concerned about our integrity, Martin has seen into it that we have at our disposal all necessary information and that we have access to the best possible expertise we might need. Grace to his efforts we now enjoy, after a very complex process of accommodating two quite different legal systems into a satisfactory and meaningful whole, an excellent constitution that came into being through a democratic process and was unanimously adopted and ratified. Thanks to his efforts we are now looking trustfully into the future as to the Finnish translation of the Urantia Book, and we feel assured of even this objective being achieved in near future.”
Is this the same Martin W. Myers that is so negatively depicted in the Executive Committee letter? Is it possible that there just might be another point of view that needs to be heard in this controversy?
Did anyone point out that some of those that so sanctimoniously presume to sit in judgment on Martin's behavior are themselves subject to accusations of angry outbursts, political plotting, potential conflicts of interest, and activities that are a possible threat to the integrity of the trademarks as well as The Urantia Book copyright?
Did anyone relate your stated goal that, "The Trustees have to be responsible to us!" and suggest the possibility that this whole attack on Martin is, at its core, nothing more than an opportunistic grab for power by you and other individuals whose ambitions for control and the evangelistic "churchification" of the Urantia movement have been frustrated by the legitimate authority and actions of a strong and independent Urantia Foundation?
Did any of those, including yourself, who, during the C.U.B.S. litigation, shook their shaming finger at the Foundation for allegedly failing to exhaust every effort to settle that dispute on the personal level before resorting to legal means, ask why this approach was not attempted in this disagreement with Martin? On several occasions you have emphatically stated that the trademark dispute with C.U.B.S., which was replete with intricate legal ramifications for the future of the Urantia movement, could have been settled "over a cup of coffee," thus giving the benefit of the doubt to an organization whose misuse of the Urantia mark and whose subsequent groundless attack on the mark's validity could quite possibly have threatened the viability and very existence of Urantia Brotherhood. If such low key deliberations were possible in the C.U.B.S. case, why didn't anyone on the Executive Committee ever make a "personal" attempt to call Martin and ask to meet with him one‑on‑one to explain the alleged "charges" and try to resolve them before they were disseminated by letter to the General Council and through them the movement at large? Where was that "cup of coffee" when we really needed it?
When you add to the above questions the description I heard of your attempt to steamroller the acceptance of an even more noxious letter over the objections of the majority of the Executive Committee, I cannot see how any fair thinking person could expect the Trustees to base any decisions for action on unsubstantiated "evidence" that appears to be nothing more than an amalgam of half‑truths, exaggerations, rumors, insinuations, and biased opinions dressed up in Urantia Book phraseology to help it masquerade as "thoughtful deliberation." Where, I ask, in those few minutes of possibly slanderous testimony which produced the potentially libelous three page attack on Martin and the integrity of the Foundation, did the Executive Committee display the slightest bit of group wisdom?
I am equally amazed by the striking contrast between your actions in leading this vendetta against Martin and your reactions to my writing and distributing the "Vern Grimsley Message Evaluation." You may recall that in 1984 you tried to persuade me not to publish my report, citing the potential animosity it could stir up against Vern and his Family of God Foundation (F.O.G.) and the possible split or damage it might cause in the movement if all the facts were known by everyone. You were especially adamant about not wanting me to mention the fact that Vern and his F.O.G. members had squandered as much as three and a half million dollars of Urantia movement donated money in their attempt to promulgate the "voices," "messages" and follow their "instructions" to prepare for World War III. Yet, you now have the audacity to criticize the Foundation's spending of a mere fraction of that amount on the legal defense of the registered marks in the C.U.B.S. suit.
I have often wondered if your opposition to my exposing the facts surrounding Vern's activities had anything to do with your attempt early on to get the Brotherhood to cooperate with Vern and the leadings of his "voices," and your personal attempt to persuade Trustees Martin Myers and Edith Cook of the possible veracity of the "messages" and encouraging the Foundation to turn over its independent decision making responsibilities to Vern's "voices" and to follow their "instructions" to make emergency preparations for World War III.
When it comes to judging the current competence of Urantia Brotherhood decision makers, it can sometimes be instructive to look back to see where they were once willing to lead us. Is it just a coincidence that many of the same persons who are leading the assault and providing "evidence" against Martin are the very people who were initial believers in the rightness of Vern's cause; who encouraged attempts by Brotherhood and Foundation leaders to try to "communicate" with the "voices"; made frantic phone calls across the country urging readers to arm themselves; failed to publicly support incriminating evidence against Vern's actions that was admitted in private; held "emergency" meetings to spread the gospel of the "messages" to movement "leaders"; called meetings to instruct readers on civil defense preparations per the "voices'" guidance; advised F.O.G. on military defense procedures; sold homes and businesses out of fear of losing their equity in the coming "attack"; wrote "hot" letters urging support of Vern's actions; built bomb shelters; bought caves; leaked confidential Foundation information to Vern and his supporters; stood by, silently, refusing to take a stand one way or another until they could gauge the way the political winds were blowing; and, worst of all, actively resisted Foundation efforts to put a stop to such dangerous foolishness?
Is it just a coincidence that the person whose competence you are questioning, Martin Myers, is the only Foundation or Brotherhood leader who had the perception and courage at the beginning to openly declare his opposition to Vern's "voices" and who resisted all amounts of pressure from the leadership of the Foundation and the Brotherhood to follow the instructions of the "voices"? Is it possible that Martin's presence on the Foundation is an embarrassing reminder to some Brotherhood "leaders" of the potentially disastrous path down which they were willing to lead the Urantia movement, and an embarrassing reminder that they were wrong and Martin was right in this and numerous other instances of crucial policy decisions that they have opposed over the years?
There is another important lesson that can be learned by looking back at what has been the most cataclysmic event in our movement's brief history. I believe that it is revealing to examine the relative merits of (1) the need and evidence for my challenging Vern's activities, and (2) the need and evidence for your current questioning of Martin's actions. I think there is no real comparison. Vern's widely promulgated plans were a direct and imminent threat to the integrity of the Urantia movement. The evidence against Vern's actions was based on well‑documented fact, not subjective opinion, which seems to be the basis of the charges against Martin. Where is the substantive evidence of his wrong doing? The personal feelings of a few persons about Martin's managerial style" hardly seem to warrant an "emergency" meeting of the Executive Committee (which, incidentally, never occurred even at the height of the Grimsley affair). In fact, the seriousness of Vern's assault on the integrity of The Urantia Book, the Foundation, the Brotherhood and the movement in general is attested to by the fact that, in addition to the scores of personal lives that were turned upside down by his actions, several top Foundation and Brotherhood leaders were removed, resigned, or did not stand for reelection as a result of their involvement in, and support of, Vern's activities.
Even so, there are many present leaders of the Brotherhood, who, despite their participation in encouraging acceptance or tolerance of Vern's actions, were able to avoid the stigma of their complicity with the "voices" and are still found in positions of power and influence. It appears that if a person can smile sweetly, give a firm handshake or friendly hug, quote the proper platitudinous passages from the Book, and discourse eloquently on the idealistic applications of its teachings, it doesn't matter that their actions might actually pose a direct threat to the integrity of the democratic process of the General Council, the Brotherhood Constitution, the trademarks, and the copyright. The most ironic example of this hypocritical standard is the General Council's tolerance in its membership of the number one enabler of Vern Grimsley's attempt to supplant the democratic functioning of the Brotherhood decision making process with "messages" from "voices" that only he could hear. Until her recent voluntary and unrequested resignation, this person, who promulgated, fought for, and defended the rightness of the "messages" and the disgraced messenger to the bitter end, was accorded all the rights and privileges of a member in good standing, despite the fact that she wittingly, or unwittingly, helped lead the campaign that could have brought down the very movement she so eagerly sought to serve. Is it not ironic that after welcoming the presence of a sweet and extremely pleasant individual whose actions unequivocally showed dangerously poor judgment and decision making capabilities, the Executive Committee is now demanding the ouster of an allegedly unpleasant person whose judgment in the Grimsley crisis, and in every other major policy decision, has been proven over time to be correct and proper?
Despite the General Council's and Executive Committee's acceptance and even "rehabilitation" of individuals involved in Vern's activities, the repercussions of that traumatic event are still reverberating below the surface throughout the movement. I know this to be a fact, as people continue to seek me out to discuss the issues and personalities involved, even sending me occasional requests for copies of my report. Since a crisis can often reveal much about a person's character, I believe that one is justified in judging a person's leadership qualities by how he or she reacts in situations such as the one surrounding Vern's "voices." That incident is still looked upon as a litmus test of leadership by many people. Judging by the participants in this current attack on Martin, and through him the independence and integrity of the Foundation, the wisdom and credibility of many of his accusers could rightly be open to question.
Although you never asked me for a copy of my report, Richard Keeler sent you his copy and subsequently shared with me the enclosed letter from you to him, in which you question my ethics and methodology in writing the "Vern Grimsley Message Evaluation." I recently reread the letter and was amazed at the irony and hypocrisy that I found in it. When I first read it five years ago,, I was disappointed that you found little value to my work. Fortunately, I had also received scores of other letters and phone calls thanking me for what I had done and telling me how helpful the report had been to them. I've even heard from former F.O.G. members who said my report helped them make their decision to leave F.O.G. Therefore, when I was considering your criticisms, I attributed it mostly to your possible embarrassment at being an early supporter of Vern and his "voices."
In light of your current activities, however, I must call your attention to the puzzling disparity between your criticism of my approach to confronting Vern on his proven misdeeds, and your methods of confronting Martin on his alleged misconduct. In your letter to Richard you bend over backwards in every instance to defend Vern's actions and to denigrate my efforts to arrive at a full and factual account of Vern's substantive activities. You even called the report "a 'hatchet' job." For your information, that "hatchet job" took eight months of "thoughtful deliberation" to research and write. To begin with, it was written about a man who was one of my closest friends; who was my fraternity pledge brother and roommate in college; who introduced The Urantia Book to me; who was a respected counselor and advisor to me on many matters; and who even performed the wedding of my wife and me. I began my research by personally confronting Vern, face to face, with a detailed list of my concerns about his actions. my final report went through three major revisions and expansions. It was edited by Richard Keeler, a long time friend and the chief financial supporter of Vern and F.O.G., for fairness and clarity of thought. It was submitted to an advisory board of knowledgeable, distinguished, and long time students of The Urantia Book to examine the accuracy of its methodology, interpretations, and conclusions. It was reviewed by several former members of F.O.G. to verify its facts. it was checked by an attorney to insure that no libel
Mr. David Elders / page 8
was committed, and was given to Vern to read at each stage of its revision for him to make any comments or arguments on his behalf ‑‑ before I published it.
I invite you to compare that procedure with the process that produced the recent letter from the Executive Committee.
I will not attempt to quote and analyze the numerous instances of self‑contradiction that your 1984 letter to Richard reveals when read against the background of your actions against Martin. As you reread that letter and rethink your actions in this current affair, first consider the "facts" I presented and the checks and balances I employed in calling Vern to task for his alleged actions. Then apply your letter's criticism of my ethics and methodology to the "facts" you used and the process you designed and employed in confronting Martin with his alleged misconduct. I strongly suggest that if you had used the same standards of criticism and fair play in your campaign against Martin that you required of me in my report on Vern, much of the current and future difficulties engendered by your actions could have been avoided.
Ironically, Martin Myers, the victim of this travesty of justice, is the one individual in the Urantia movement who is on record as having always fought for the application of correct procedure in the internal and external operations of both Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood. And although you have tried to make Martin the scapegoat for certain policy decisions and legal expenditures necessary to upholding the fiduciary responsibilities of the Foundation, Martin has never made any of those decisions unilaterally. In every major decision he has acted only after obtaining the best legal advice available and with the full consultation and approval of the Board of Trustees. If there is a malfeasance "smoking gun" to be found, it will have all five Trustees' fingerprints on it, not just Martin's.
The person so harshly trashed in your letter bears little resemblance to the Martin Myers that I have known for over 30 years and worked with as a Trustee for over three years. As Gloriann Harris, whose wise counsel I will truly miss and who had the perspicacity and dignity to decline your invitation to appear before your "emergency" meeting of the Executive Committee, told me, "I have always said that the problem most people have is that they are interacting with Martin Myers' image and not with Martin Myers." Your letter blows more smoke than it casts light on the effort to see all sides of this disagreement and to put Martin's actions in a context that would give everyone a proper perspective on the issues involved. Only when people are able to separate rumors from facts, personalities from policies, and political expediency from commitment to the long term goals of both Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood will they know the real Martin Myers and be prepared to "judge" him and his actions fairly and objectively.
Mr. David Elders / page 9
Common sense, I think, should tell anyone that Martin's character cannot be as black as the portrait the Executive Committee letter paints of him. Even you, David, during a conversation we had on the phone this past year, volunteered your opinion that of all the persons involved in the Urantia movement, Martin Myers has the most comprehensive and accurate vision of the goals and mission of The Urantia Book and its part in this unique endeavor by our Spiritual Planetary Government. Have you changed your mind? Martin has never claimed to have infallible judgment. Neither has he ever claimed to be a "special person." He has, however, undeniably had special opportunities for training and insight during his 21 years at 533 Diversey. This training has prepared and guided him in the execution of his duties as a member of both Urantia Brotherhood and Urantia Foundation. Even in his most controversial moments, which I believe have been blown way out of proportion for the purposes of your attack on him and the Foundation, his actions have always been marked by a selfless loyalty to his duty to follow the stringent requirements of confidentiality, ethics, and the law in carrying out the myriad responsibilities that have fallen upon his shoulders.
In general, I think that intemperate language and anger impede good communication and are counterproductive. Ideally, one should never have to resort to such devices. Martin and I agree in this thinking. Unfortunately, not all of the situations that a Urantia Foundation President finds himself in are "ideal." Nevertheless, the Trustees have agreed that no matter how provoked we might be by the actions and words of those who hold views and philosophies that could be interpreted as being contrary to the best interests of the Foundation or Brotherhood, we should not allow our zeal to defend what we believe to be necessary and right obscure the goal of "consummate self‑control" that was modeled by Jesus. I know that Martin is capable of such "self‑control." I have seen him function in the most difficult of situations when he has used admirable restraint, and the results were excellent for all parties involved. "Consummate self‑control" as a communication style is my personal goal for interacting with the Brotherhood, and I know that all the Trustees share that goal.
I believe that many of the misunderstandings attributed to Martin's "temper" stem from his habit of expressing his feelings emphatically, sometimes in a raised voice that might be misinterpreted as "angry" when, in fact, it is not. Regarding those handful of heated confrontations, which gave rise, in part, to your current campaign against him, I wish when Martin found it necessary to make a verbal "fist" in defending what he thought was ethically, logically, and philosophically best, that he might instead have been able to put on that "velvet glove" of political tactfulness that others appear to slip into so easily. Unfortunately, many of those who quickly don velvet gloves in times of crisis and the need for resolute action, cannot bring it upon themselves also to form a defensive "fist" for The Urantia Book when it is truly threatened, usually citing their following of a "higher" or more "spiritual" interpretation of its teachings.
Mr. David Elders / page 10
it would be ideal if the Trustees could blindly apply the finer guidelines and teachings of The Urantia Book to every instance of disagreement with the Foundation's long‑time policies and legal actions. But Urantia Foundation is constrained by the fiduciary requirements imposed on it by the Declaration of Trust, the State of Illinois, and the federal legal requirements of the trademark and copyright laws. Even so, we are not the first people who have had to resort to what might appear to be less than ideal means of communication and action to defend an innocent and irreplaceable treasure. I am reminded of the story of Jacob the stone mason's son and his special relationship to Jesus, as recounted on page 1368 of The Urantia Book:
Perhaps (Jesus') most unusual and outstanding trait was his unwillingness to fight for his rights. Since he was such a well‑developed lad for his age, it seemed strange to his playfellows that he was disinclined to defend himself even from injustice or when subjected to personal abuse. As it happened, he did not suffer much on account of this trait because of the friendship of Jacob, a neighbor boy, who was one year older. He was the son of the stone mason, a business associate of Joseph. Jacob was a great admirer of Jesus and made it his business to see that no one was permitted to impose upon Jesus because of his aversion to physical combat. Several times older and uncouth youths attacked Jesus, relying upon his reputed docility, but they always suffered swift and certain retribution at the hands of his self‑appointed champion and ever‑ready defender, Jacob the stone mason's son.
As I see it, the Foundation's defensive relationship to The Urantia Book is much like that of Jacob's to Jesus. our first responsibility is to protect the Book with the wise use of all of the legal and moral means available to us.
While you say you support "the principles for which Urantia Foundation was established," some of your actions and statements are, at best, questionable in that regard. On page two of the Executive Committee letter you write, "While the use of law as a last resort to resolve disputes involving challenges to the copyright and trademarks is not necessarily inappropriate..." (My emphasis.) When, may I ask, as a "last resort" in disputes involving challenges to the copyright and trademarks of The Urantia Book is the use of law ever "inappropriate"? Do you mean that there are times that you would risk losing the trademarks and the copyright in order to avoid a legal action? Such dangerously fuzzy thinking betrays a complete lack of knowledge about the legal intricacies and demands placed upon the holders of copyrights and trademarks. It certainly appears fortunate that the fate of the inviolable text of The Urantia Book and its identifying marks do not rest in the hands of the Executive Committee of Urantia Brotherhood.
Your obligatory words of support for the Foundation take on an even more hollow ring in the "second wave" of your attack on Martin, the August 9, 1989, mailing to General Councilors. The zealousness of your attempt to "get" Martin, and the paucity of your substantive evidence against him and the Foundation, is clearly indicated by your dragging out a purloined, confidential, 1958 memo from William Sadler, Jr. in which he expresses his views, at the time, on the "ideal" working relationship between Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood. Doesn't this behavior of yours fail to meet both your criticism of my methods in writing the "Vern Grimsley Message Evaluation" and the standards of ethics you impose on Martin in your letter from the Executive Committee?
First, you attempt to use the "authority" of an early leader of the Urantia movement to add credibility to your case. At the same time, the means you have chosen (the widespread distribution of a confidential memo) to reach your goal (the removal of Martin and Brotherhood dominance over the Foundation) violates the wishes of the writer of the memo who explicitly stated in it: "This memorandum is prepared on a confidential basis and it is recommended that its contents be restricted to the Trustees." Not only have you made the ethically questionable decision to violate the author's wishes for confidentiality, but you have the audacity to "re‑confidentialize" the memo for "GENERAL COUNCIL USE ONLY," as if that is going to prevent its potential misuse by others. Why do you suppose Bill Sadler made that request for confidentiality? Was it the fear that some current or future leaders of the Brotherhood might take some of his comments out of the context of the time and circumstances in which they were written and use those selected excerpts as a political bludgeon with which to beat up on the Foundation? If so, he was perfectly right.
More distressingly, the arguments you seem to be making by your emphasis on certain passages from Bill's memo (which seem to be only the ones that are restrictive on the actions to be taken by the Foundation), while disregarding the counterbalancing admonitions against the potentially disastrous actions of the Brotherhood and other points that do not support your goals, appear to be a clear attempt on your part to intimidate and pressure the licensor Foundation into a subservient position to its licensee, the Brotherhood. While the Trustees have no desire to interfere in the legitimate actions of an independent functioning Brotherhood, we cannot allow ourselves to be dominated by it.
Furthermore, after all your complaints about Martin's not talking to you directly about Foundation and Brotherhood business, I cannot believe that you want us to take everything that Bill Sadler has written about the interaction of the two organizations at face value. Do you honestly want the "recommended channel" between us to be "the Secretary of the Foundation and the Secretary‑General of the Brotherhood"? In your eagerness to find "evidence" to support your point of view, did you ignore the negative impact of some of the other suggestions he made about how the Trustees should interact with the Brotherhood leaders? For example, do you really want a Foundation that is pretending to stay quietly in the background, while it covertly tries to manipulate the Brotherhood from behind the scenes? Aside from the fact that we cannot do this as the licensor of the marks, does such a philosophy lead to that open and non‑secretive relationship that we all want?
Given the circumstances of today, what should be the basic relationship between Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood? Ideally, as Bill points out, since there are fewer individuals on the Foundation than in the Brotherhood to contend with, it would seem best for the five Trustees to agree to avoid conflict with the Brotherhood leadership and to maneuver around any potential collisions of interests, programs, or policies. In the early days, with the movement under the strong guidance of Dr. William Sadler and before the repeated challenges to the copyright that ensued upon his death, and prior to the Foundation's growing duties and responsibilities to defend and preserve the registered marks, that kind of relationship might have been possible. Unfortunately, such an informal association is not practical today.
I have often thought of the relationship between the two organizations in terms of the nautical "rules of the road" that apply in a "crossing situation" between two ships when a collision is inevitable if both vessels maintain their "course and speed." In this analogy, it is the duty of the crews on both ships to do their utmost to plot courses that are safe, consistent with the teachings of The Urantia Book, and true to the original chart that was laid out by the Founders of Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood, under the able guidance of our unseen friends. But whenever the possibility of a collision appears on the horizon, the Foundation, operating under legal restrictions as the owner and licensor of its trademarks and the holder of the copyright, is now the "burdened vessel," the ship that is legally required by the "rules of the road" to maintain a certain "course and speed" in its dealings with the Brotherhood, the readership at large, and the general public. Conversely, it is now the Brotherhood who has the responsibility to be the "maneuvering vessel," the ship whose choices of direction are more numerous and flexible than the Foundation's and the one legally required to alter its "course and speed" to avoid a disastrous colliding of interests.
As to your allegations that Martin and the Foundation are guilty of actions that have placed the Brotherhood's work "in jeopardy," I am at a loss to see the substantive evidence on which you have drawn this conclusion. You, yourself, in the July, 1989, General Council‑Executive Committee Letter listed page after page of glowing accomplishments of the Brotherhood. You closed with two eloquent paragraphs describing your evaluation of the abundance of quantitative and qualitative growth that has occurred during just the past year. And while you also made a veiled attack on Martin and the Foundation (which, in retrospect, was a preview of your current actions), you still gave the impression that things are getting better and better in the Brotherhood's ability to fulfill its obligations and move forward toward its goals.
Which David Elders are we to believe? Are things all rosy or all rotten? Did you color or withhold the truth from the "masses" to protect them from the "facts," while reserving the real truth for a governing "elite," as you often seem wont to do?
Currently, in your rush to pass judgment on Martin, you have completely ignored his many and vital contributions to most of the successful programs that you proudly championed in the July "General Council Letter." In fact, the Foundation's input, led by Martin's personal interaction with you and Harry McMullan, saved the poorly thought out Area Coordinator Program from turning into a disaster. Among other things, the original proposal had no comprehensive plan description; the details of implementation were not fully developed; its thrust was not consistent with our early founders' concept of a benign, non‑marketing approach to spreading the teachings; it had no requirements for training; and instead of being coordinated from the Brotherhood Headquarters in Chicago, it was being set up to be run out of Oklahoma City. Led by Martin, it was at the Foundation's insistence, as licensor of the marks that would be represented, through the Brotherhood, by these Area Coordinators, that the program was strengthened in those areas and given the proper safeguards to help insure positive and productive results from everyone involved with it. So, in this particular instance, far from putting the Brotherhood's work "in jeopardy," Martin Myers undeniably helped to avert possible problems and increased the Brotherhood's chance for success. Even Harry agreed that the plan was much improved because of Martin's personal input and efforts.
Far from evidencing your contention in the General Council letter that Urantia Brotherhood "has grown from what might be described as 'adolescence' into young adulthood, more ready than ever before to fully accept the obligations, responsibilities, and challenges of its purpose with honor, humility, grace, determination, integrity and openness and, most important, in a manner consistent with our highest individual and group comprehension of the teachings of The Urantia Book," your actions in this apparent "fit of pique" at Martin and at the Foundation seem contrary to all the above stated qualities. I hope you will not let your anger and your seeming desire for personal power and hegemony over the Foundation allow you to lead the Brotherhood down the divergent path of unneeded and unwanted confrontation with the Trustees. We are now dependent on the General Council to restore a sense of fairness to this process.
As disappointed as I am in what you have done, I hold no personal animosity toward you or any of the members of the Executive Committee, much less presume to pass judgment on your conduct according to my interpretations of The Urantia Book's teachings. Martin, myself, and all the Trustees have made mistakes. I hope we will learn from those mistakes and not repeat them. I give you my personal commitment to that goal.
With certain dysfunctional elements no longer operating as a part of the Foundation decision making and implementation process, both at the Board and staff level, and with the addition of clear thinking, independent personalities to a Board of Trustees finally unified in operating philosophy, open communication, and mutual trust, the conditions associated with personal conduct that might be considered less than ideal should be virtually eliminated.
But even if the Trustees perform our duties with flawless courtesy, impeccable openness, and constant consultation with the Brotherhood, there are still going to be those who disagree with our actions. That comes with the territory. As stated by the author of the paper on the default of Adam and Eve:
But in our evolving universe of relative perfection and imperfection we rejoice that disagreement and misunderstanding are possible, for thereby is evidenced the fact and the act of personality in the universe. And if our creation is an existence dominated by personality, then can you be assured of the possibility of personality survival, advancement, and achievement: we can be confident of personality growth, experience, and adventure. (page 846)
This current disagreement is an opportunity for growth, experience, and adventure for all concerned. I have great hope for the future cooperation between Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood as we walk down our separate but parallel paths toward our mutual goals. But I will not pay for that cooperation with the abdication of my responsibility as a Trustee to make independent decisions for the Foundation. But neither will I let this misguided and unprecedented challenge to the integrity and independence of Urantia Foundation by you and the Executive Committee diminish my desire to find people in Urantia Brotherhood and the readership at large who are willing to work with the Trustees in an honest, open, and pro‑active relationship.
As always, you have my phone number. I am willing to talk to you about this or any other matter at any time.
Sincerely,
Hoite C. Caston
Trustee Urantia Foundation
Enc: David Elders' July 19, 1984, letter to Richard Keeler.
cc: Members of the General Council
Trustees and Trustee Emeritus
Recently Resigned Trustees
Past Brotherhood Presidents
Brotherhood Members at their request