|
Comments on the Jesus papers
Gardner calls the Jesus section of The Urantia Book impressive, but he points out that it's not the only well written life of Christ. He extols Ellen White's life of Jesus, Desire of Ages, as "beautifully written," though he says that much of it was plagiarized. He points out several similarities between Ellen White's work and the life of Jesus in The Urantia Book. He states that both the Adventist bible and The Urantia Book move the comma in the biblical quotation where Jesus says to the thief on the cross beside him, I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise from just after "you" to after "today"--this then allows for the time lag between death and resurrection taught by both the Adventists and The Urantia Book. Note however, that in the Bible Jesus was not resurrected immediately. Surprisingly, though Gardner criticizes moving the comma, he also presents arguments in favor of doing so. For a change, he's almost an impartial observer.
While Gardner is impressed with the Jesus papers, he does not think they are revealed truth. His theory is that this section of The Urantia Book was written by Dr. Sadler with perhaps some help from Dr. Lena Sadler, his wife.
Urantia Book science and eugenics take a drubbing
Gardner is the most critical of the science of The Urantia Book, especially the eugenics. He ties the eugenics in the book to Dr. Sadler's interest and writings about eugenics. Indeed, science and eugenics are two areas in which the book is most vulnerable to attack by critics.
Many students of The Urantia Book struggle with both the science and the eugenics in it. If the writers of the book had claimed that these ideas were divinely inspired, the credibility of the rest of the book would be seriously compromised. Since this is not the case, Gardner is simply pointing out what many students already know, and what the authors of the book admit--there are flaws in the science of the book. Nevertheless, there are some ideas in the book such as plate tectonics that Gardner can't explain away easily without stretching the truth beyond its breaking point.
The eugenics issue is one that deserves some thoughtful consideration. Did the authors overstate their case? Ironically, Gardner may have done us a favor by pointing out areas of the book that other critics will surely target. The Urantia community needs to decide how to deal with such critics.
Polytheism
Another charge Gardner levels at The Urantia Book is that it is polytheistic because it lists a number of gods. When he interviewed me, I pointed out that the same charge could be entered against Christianity because of the three persons of the Trinity; he chose not to reply to that charge. This didn't surprise me since he intimated that the Christian "Trinity" is polytheism in another of his books, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener. He seems to think that "the gods" refer to all of the various spiritual beings described by The Urantia Book. This is not so. The term "God" or "Gods" is reserved for the Father, Son, Infinite Spirit, the Supreme, the Ultimate and the Absolute. And ultimately, all these are unified in the I AM. Had Gardner read the book more carefully, he would have known this.
Gardner finds Urantia Book funny
Gardner's book took a great deal of effort and research; I'm sure that he knew it would have a very limited audience. He even revealed in his book that his wife thought he was wasting his time writing it. He claims that he wrote the book because of Dr. Sadler: "It is because of this astonishing switch of an intelligent, gifted man, from one cult to another..." He goes on to say, "I also must confess that I wrote this book because I found Urantiaism to be almost as funny as Mormonism, Christian Science, and Sun-Moonism." Of course, he does mention early in his book that he had been an avid Adventist when he was a young man until he became quite disillusioned with it. Could his enmity for Adventism, and Dr. Sadler's early connection with Adventism have anything to do with Gardner's unrelenting attacks on The Urantia Book?
Is Gardner's book worth reading?
Is Gardner's book worth reading? While it's not deathless prose, it does put together more of the early history of the community and origins of The Urantia Book than anyone else has. It's unfortunate that he was not more of an unbiased reporter, but then perhaps he wouldn't have had the motivation to write the book. It's also unfortunate that he gives so much credence to the opinions of the late Harold Sherman and Sherman's widow. Since Sherman had a falling out with Dr. Sadler and the Forum and parted company with ill feelings, he can hardly be called a reliable source of information. But yes, we need to read his book. We can sometimes learn more from our opponents than from friends. Opponents may be biased, but sometimes they point out things that we'd rather not admit.
Concluding remarks
I told Gardner at the end of our interview that I am a pragmatist. I try to evaluate spiritual
|
|
