Ken Glasziou

   The information in the Papers that relates directly to this question is scattered right throughout the text of their pages. Extraordinarily, the mandate defining the "universe rules" of revelation is not described until midway through the Papers, and  the authors' explanations of their use of human sources are split between  near the beginning and two thirds of the way through. Such important references surely ought to have been in a preface or in an introduction?

   Expositions on the relativity and evolutionary nature of truth get mentioned in many different places. This peculiarity of presentation has made it quite difficult to obtain a coordinated and unbroken overview of the degree of authority to be afforded to revelation that stems from a variety of celestial sources--some admittedly of only marginally higher status than the intended recipients.

   Possibly because of its association with that frequently declared claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God, for many of us this word "revelation" carries the subconscious connotation of being "God-ordained, hence infallible." Perhaps it is not surprising that a similar expectation for divine infallibility has been widely accorded to the text of the Urantia Papers. But is this really a valid expectation? The scattered nature of the evidence makes it difficult to decide. So is there a way to improve our comprehension in such circumstances?

   Recent research has shown that, for many of us, the graphical presentation of information is a valuable supplementary aid to understanding. The flow diagrams presented on the following pages employ this medium in the hope of clarifying the significance of these unique and remarkable Papers