WILLIAM S. SADLER, JR.
23 July 1960
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
Part 1 of 11
Transcribed by Kristen Maaherra
Scanned by Christel Schmidt
Formatted by David KantorPart 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part 11
Webmaster's note: These transcripts are presented here in unedited form. There are some discontinuities at points where the tape was broken and times when Bill turned off the recorder while he talked. These transcripts have not been closely edited for typos or scanning artifacts. If you are interested in improving the presentation of this material, please contact sysop@urantia-book.org
Audience: Good evening. It is real gratifying to see so many guests. I'm Clyde Goodman, President of our local society. known as the First Urantia Society of Oklahoma. We. tonight, are all gathered to hear a friend of ours from Chicago. a student -- an avid student -- of the book, and one of our greatest assets in starting our group. It is with humble gratification that I introduce to you William S. Sadler. Jr. of Chicago. Bill.
I suppose I ought to tell you folks who I am. I'm a management consultant. And the best definition I ever heard of a consultant was used by a chap who introduced me. He said. "A consultant is a person who's basically too nice to be unemployed. but isn't quite smart enough to hold down a steady job. "
Audience: Laughter.
I'm sort of like a philosopher, you know. A philosopher is a person who spends his time giving advice to people who are fundamentally happier than he is. And I go around and try to solve business problems and tell people how to run their businesses when they've only spent their whole lives getting them loused up as far as they are.
I'd like to talk to you tonight a little bit about religion and philosophy and some science. I can maybe introduce this talk by telling you of a conversation I had a number of years ago. I once had a son who was a walking question mark. And I was sitting talking with him one day, and he said. "Say, Pop," he said. "This Berlin air lift. What is that all about?" So I explained it to him. Hmm. He said. "This Korean police action, what's that all about?" I explained that to him. He said. "Every January. you get real white when you consider your income tax. Now. why are you paying so much in tax?" I explained to him armaments and debts and so forth. "Well" he said. "didn't we win the last war?" Well, I patiently explained that to him, too. And he looked at me, and he grinned. and he said. "As near as I can see. Old Boy, your generation has loused things up about beyond recovery."
Audience: Laughter.
And I got to thinking about it We have loused things up pretty badly. We are a generation that's come along after about 300 years of lop-sided growth. You know, the medieval Christian, the black death in Florence. He bowed his head and he said. as he buried his family, "The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. blessed be the name of the Lord."
Came the Renaissance and the rediscovery of the Greek viewpoint of life. And men began to say, "We don't have to die from the black death. There is something we can do about things in general. And material life in particular." And this was the beginning of the development of a scientific attitude in place of a simple, rather naive, religious acceptance of the vicissitudes of life. The watchcry of the Renaissance was, "Man is the measure of all things."
And so we witnessed the birth of a new civilization A resurrection of Hellenic culture if you please. Because the Greeks were the first real secularists. The first people who looked at life and said. "We can do something about this. "
Let's count our blessings. Representative government. Universal education. An industrial system that gives us the highest standard of living that human beings have ever known. All the material comforts that we have any right to ask for. Continued prosperity.
But there's something wrong, friends. Along with that, we have succeeded in killing more people scientifically, in my lifetime, than have been killed in warfare in the last 2000 years. We have loused things up. Our growth has been lop-sided. We didn't just stop with the growth of a scientific attitude. We didn't confine our scientific revolt to a revolt against superstition We revolted against religion itself. To the point that I know human beings who are afraid of the word religion. They would shrink like wilted lettuce before they would stand up and say to a group of people, "I am a religious man."
Now, of course, we're going to have to redefine religion before we get through this evening. Our growth has been lop-sided. We have become so enamored of science that we are worse than atheists. There's one thing worse than an atheist. That is a secularist. An atheist is at least fighting God. He's paying God some attention. He's in opposition
A secularist is too busy to bother about God. He says, "Don't tell me I don't love my fellow men I'm going to put more chrome on the car we're bringing out next year. We're going to cut the price of the dishwasher. We're going to bring out a new plastic. We're improving the standard of living. I'm going to give them what they want in the plant. I'm a good guy."
But his entire mind, his entire life, his entire thinking is occupied with material. temporal problems. He's full of ideas. He doesn't have too much in the way of ideals.
Let me give you a horrible story. You know the story of the American prisoners of war in Korea? You know how they died like flies? These are our G.I.'s. So-called Christians.
Do you know the story of the Turkish prisoners of war in Korea? How a bunch of Mohammedans came through? Let me tell you what they did When the Chinese removed their officers, the non-coms took command When they removed the non-coms, the senior private took command When a Turk got sick, three Turks were detailed to nurse him 24 hours around the clock. Those Turkish soldiers came through almost to a man without a casualty. Which proves that working Mohammedanism is better than sleeping Christianity.
Our Christian G.I.'s died. The Mohammedans survived. Even a second-rate religion that's active is better than a passive first-rate religion
Willie Grissol said. "How long you going to talk?" I said. "Three hours, and we'll have an altar call. "
Audience: Laughter.
I don't mind if any of you look at your watches, but even if you're tempted. please don't take them off and shake them to see if they're still running. (Can't understand tape).
Audience: Laughter.
We've made scientific progress,. but we are confronted with religious and philosophic stagnation. I don't believe that you can call 20th century people to the service of God with the battle cries of the Middle Ages.
You know. I was talking to one little gal in Chicago about this book, and she pulled this bromide on me, you know, "the religion that's good enough for my parents is good enough for me," and I said, "Wouldn't that have been a fine position for the 12 apostles to have taken!"
When Jesus asked them to listen to some new truth, they could have just said, "Look, we're real conservative; we're for the law and the prophets and the Pentateuch and the books of Moses and so forth, and dear Carpenter, do your recruiting elsewhere. "
We not only have religious stagnation, we have philosophic confusion Consider the confused ideology of the United States of America as we confront Russia. We're talking about the American way of life. And how do we define it? You have not only pickle relish but mustard on your hot dog. You have bigger fins on your Cadillac. More chrome on your automobile. A super beautyrest to sleep on. Is this exciting? No. The Communistic lies sound better than that. They claim to be fighting for mankind.
We have philosophic confusion We look at this world. We do not see the perfection we think we might see if there were a God. We see imperfection We see lots of problems. And we're inclined to discount religion because the world is not a nice, easy, sweet, perfect place to live in
I'd like to read you something:
1. "Is courage -- strength of character -- desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.
"2. Is altruism -- service of one's fellows -- desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.
"3. Is hope -- grandeur of trust -- desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.
4. Is faith -- the supreme assertion of human thought -- desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.
"5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.
"6. Is idealism -- the approaching concept of the divine -- desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.
"7. Is loyalty -- devotion to highest duty -- desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.
"8. Is unselfishness--the spirit of self-forgetfulness-- desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.
"9. Is pleasure -- the satisfaction of happiness -- desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood ofsuffering are ever-present experiential possibilities."
That is very straight, philosophic reasoning, I submit. I'd like to offer you, this evening, what is to me one of the most priceless concepts in this book as it deals with the province of science, philosophy, and religion. This I've used many, many times in talking with confused people without necessarily telling them about this book.
Consider the largest word you know. I would suggest to you that the word is, "reality." I can't think of a bigger word than reality. "That which is real." Let's sub-divide reality. Let reality be like a heading, a banner, going right across the front page of a newspaper. I want to have 3 columns under it. And I want to have sub-headings under each of these columns. And the 3 sub-headings are: Thing, Meaning, and Value.
Reality comes in 3 different packages. There are things. There are meanings. There are values. Where religion makes its mistake is it seeks to make pronouncements concerning things. Religion is not concerned with things. It's not concerned with the origin of species, or with the origin of this world One is a proper subject for genetics and anthropology; the other is a proper study of astrophysics, astronomy, and geology.
Scientists are equally fatheaded when they are so unscientific as to make pompous, unprovable statements concerning religion. As scientists, they are concerned solely with things.
We approach each of these realities with a different technique. If you're dealing with things, use reason Mathematics. A scientific approach.
But if you're in the domain of values, there is no mathematics of values. Tell me, concerning altruistic love, what is its mass, its velocity, its amplitude, its hue, its wavelength, its dimensions? The whole concept of mathematics becomes ridiculous when we apply it to the domain of values.
In the domain of values, you can use faith. I would submit to you that things and values touch at no point. But both touch the area of meanings. And in the area of meanings, we use neither reason nor faith, but we try to use logic. And here is where we attempt the construction of an original, interesting, and engaging philosophy which reaches out on the one hand to the thing concept, and on the other hand to the value ideal -- and attempts to present us with a unified picture of the cosmos.
To science, the absolute is a first cause. In religion, a loving Father. In philosophy, a universal unity.
The great confusion, I think, in the thinking of modern man, is the confusion of thing, meaning, and value.
I remember many years ago, I had a couple of pretty sick children. And I got a good pediatrician on the job. Afterwards, I was out looking at the stars. It was snowing. And I had an urge to pray. I said, "All right, Willy, you're a typical human being, you're in a jam. What are you going to do? Try to practice magic? You know, when you ask God to do things for your sake. This is the attempt to practice magic. Magic is the effort to bend the universe to your will and plans and purpose. And much of praying is nothing more than a modern practice of magic. Not too successful.
I said, "No." If you ask God to cure those kids, knowing what you know and feeling as you do -- that would be blasphemy. I don't say that about any other human being, but for me to pray that way would be blasphemous. So I said, "I still want to pray. " What am I going to pray for? I have no right to pray in the domain of things. This is not a fit province for prayer.
And then it hit me. These children could not be permanently harmed. They might die, that's true. But this is not final. And then I found out what I could properly pray for, and it was a prayer of thanksgiving that this universe was so constructed that if I couldn't keep these children on earth. they'd be decently cared for and could embark on a very interesting adventure in eternity.
People are worried about religion, confused about it. because it attempts to act irreligiously. It invades the domain of science and philosophy. It makes pronouncements concerning unity, concerning facts. It has no business operating in these areas.
I remember when my children were growing up, they came bounding in one day, and they said, "Daddy, what do we pray for?"
"Well," I said, "You know you have two fathers, don't you?" "No, uh-huh. "
"Well," I said, "You got me, and you've got your Father in heaven. Now," I said, "take a good look at me. I'm corporeal, material. Your Father in heaven isn't those things. "
And then we defined in terms of all the sensory mechanism see, touch, taste, smell, and so forth.
I said, "If you want something material, don't ask your Father in heaven for it."
"Now," I said, "I think he could get it for you, but as I observe the way the universe is set up, he's delegated this. And if he hadn't delegated it, I wouldn't have a job. So if you want a pony, don't pray. Discuss it with me. You're much more apt to get a pony.
"But," I said, "if you want something that is not material," (again, through the sensory mechanism), "then," I said, "don't ask me."
"Well," they said, "what would that be?"
I said, "Courage. I don't know how to make you any braver than you are. Happiness. I don't know how to make you any happier than you are. Kindness. I can keep you warm, and I can feed you. But I don't know how to make you more kind than you are. These things you talk to your other father about"
I make my living looking at people. Evaluating them. Studying them. And I'd like to make a flat statement. There are just two traits which human beings have that animals do not have even in vestigial form. One is a sense of humor, and the other is a sense of religion
And I would submit to you that a human being who is deficient in humor and has no religion is somewhat infrahuman. He's verging towards the purely mammalian or subhuman level of existence.
I'm not only not afraid to say I have a religion, I'm prepared to say that a person who lacks one is in danger of classifying himself as a mammal.
When you put all this together -- now when I give this altar call, Grissol, you lead the procession. You always have to have a Judas-scope, you know.
Audience: Laughter.
I can't think of a better way of describing how this works in life than to read you their description of the life of the sanest human being, I think, who ever lived. And he had a good sense of humor, too. Even though the commonwealth of Israel, 1st century AD., gave him very little chance to express it.
"Although the average mortal of Urantia cannot hope to attain the high perfection of character which Jesus of Nazareth acquired while sojourning in the flesh, it is altogether possible for every mortal believer to develop a strong and unified personality along the perfected lines of the Jesus personality. The unique feature of the Master's personality was not so much its perfection as its symmetry, its exquisite and balanced unification The most effective presentation of Jesus consists in following the example of the one who said, as he gestured toward the Master standing before his accusers 'Behold the man!'
"The unfailing kindness of Jesus touched the hearts of men, but his stalwart strength of character amazed his followers. He was truly sincere- there was nothing of the hypocrite in him. He was free from affectation- he was always so refreshingly genuine. He never stooped to pretense, and he never resorted to shamming. He lived the truth, even as he taught it. He was the truth. He was constrained to proclaim saving truth to his generation, even though such sincerity sometimes caused pain He was unquestioningly loyal to all truth.
"But the Master was so reasonable, so approachable. He was so practical in all his ministry, while all his plans were characterized by such sanctified common sense. He was so free from all freakish, erratic, and eccentric tendencies. He was never capricious, whimsical, or hysterical. In all his teaching and in everything he did there was always an exquisite discrimination associated with an extraordinary sense of propriety.
"The Son of Man was always a well-poised personality. Even his enemies maintained a wholesome respect for him- they even feared his presence. Jesus was unafraid He was surcharged with divine enthusiasm, but he never became fanatical. He was emotionally active but never flighty. He was imaginative but always practical. He frankly faced the realities of life, but he was never dull or prosaic. He was courageous but never reckless - prudent but never cowardly. He was sympathetic but not sentimental- unique but not eccentric. He was pious but not sanctimonious. And he was so well-poised because he was so perfectly unified.
"Jesus' originality was unstifled. He was not bound by tradition or handicapped by enslavement to narrow conventionality. He spoke with undoubted confidence and taught with absolute authority. But his superb originality did not cause him to overlook the gems of truth in the teachings of his predecessors and contemporaries. And the most original of his teachings was the emphasis of love and mercy in the place of fear and sacrifice.
"Jesus was very broad in his outlook He exhorted his followers to preach the gospel to all peoples. He was free from all narrow-mindedness. His sympathetic heart embraced all mankind, even a universe. Always his invitation was, ' Whosoever will, let him come.'
"Of Jesus it was truly said, 'He trusted God' As a man among men he most sublimely trusted the Father in heaven. He trusted his Father as a little child trusts his earthly parent. His faith was perfect but never presumptuous. No matter how cruel nature might appear to be or how indifferent to man's welfare on earth, Jesus never faltered in his faith. He was immune to disappointment and impervious to persecution. He was untouched by apparent failure.
"He loved men as brothers, at the same time recognizing how they differed in innate endowments and acquired qualities. 'He went about doing good.'
"Jesus was an unusually cheerful person, but he was not a blind and unreasoning optimist. His constant word of exhortation was, 'Be of good cheer.' He could maintain this confident attitude because of his unswerving trust in God and his unshakable confidence in man. He was always touchingly considerate of all men because he loved them and believed in them. Still he was always true to his convictions and magnificently firm in his devotion to the doing of his Father's will.
"The Master was always generous. He never grew weary of saying, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' Said he, 'Freely you have received, freely give.' And yet, with all of his unbounded generosity, he was never wasteful or extravagant He taught that you must believe to receive salvation. 'For every one who seeks shall receive.'
"He was candid, but always kind. Said he, 'If it were not so, I would have told you.' He was frank, but always friendly. He was outspoken in his love for the sinner and in his hatred for sin. But throughout all this amazing frankness he was unerringly fair.
"Jesus was consistently cheerful, notwithstanding he sometimes drank deeply of the cup of human sorrow. He fearlessly faced the realities of existence yet was he filled with enthusiasm for the gospel of the kingdom. But he controlled his enthusiasm- it never controlled him. He was unreservedly dedicated to 'the Father's business.' This divine enthusiasm led his unspiritual brethren to think he was beside himself, but the onlooking universe appraised him as the model of sanity and the pattern of supreme mortal devotion to the high standards of spiritual living. And his controlled enthusiasm was contagious- his associates were constrained to share his divine optimism.
"This man of Galilee was not a man of sorrows- he was a soul of gladness. Always was he saying, 'Rejoice and be exceedingly glad' But when duty required, he was willing to walk courageously through the 'valley of the shadow of death.' He was gladsome but. at the same time humble.
"His courage was equaled only by his patience. When pressed to act prematurely, he would only reply, 'My hour has not yet come.' He was never in a hurry; his composure was sublime. But he was often indignant at evil, intolerant of sin. He was often mightily moved to resist that which was inimical to the welfare of his children on earth. But his indignation against sin never led to anger at the sinner.
"His courage was magnificent, but he was never foolhardy. His watchword was, 'Fear not'. His bravery was lofty and his courage often heroic. But his courage was linked with discretion and controlled by reason. It was courage born of faith, not the recklessness of blind presumption. He was truly brave but never audacious.
"The Master was a pattern of reverence. The prayer of even his youth began, 'Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be your name.' He was even respectful of the faulty worship of his fellows. But this did not deter him from making attacks on religious traditions or assaulting errors of human belief. He was reverential of true holiness, and yet he could justly appeal to his fellows, saying, 'Who among you convicts me of sin?'
"Jesus was great because he was good, and yet he fraternized with the little children. He was gentle and unassuming in his personal life, and yet he was the perfected man of a universe. His associates called him Master unbidden.
"Jesus was the perfectly unified human personality. And today, as in Galilee, he continues to unify mortal experience and to co-ordinate human endeavors. He unifies life, ennobles character, and simplifies experience. He enters the human mind to elevate, transform, and transfigure it. It is literally true: 'If any man has Christ Jesus within him, he is a new creature- old things are passing away- behold, all things are becoming new. '"
I really won't use the 3-hour sermon tonight. I think it would be fun if we could talk a little bit.
I wanted to talk to you just enough, and read you just enough, to get you stirred up. Are there any questions you'd like to ask?Audience: (Can't understand tape).
Oh. Berk said would I define religion. I'll try to. I once collected around 30 different definitions of religion. All by different authorities. And no two agree. I would define religion -- better still, let me describe my religion. Could I do that?
Audience: Sure.
I can do that more simply. Somewhere, at the center of all things, is the boss. And down here on earth are the boss's children. And they should be treated accordingly. That's my religion.
If you want me to discuss my theology with you, it will take more than 3 hours. But my religion is a very simple one.
Somewhere, at the center of all things, is the boss. Down here are the boss's children. They should be treated accordingly.
The formal definition of religion is this: Some kind of a belief in some kind of a supreme being. Some kind of hope of immortality. And some kind of ethics, deriving from the
relationship of God to other men.Most religions will qualify on that basis. Now, the minute you leave God and man's relation to God, no two religions are in agreement
Comments and questions.
Audience: Someone has something on their mind, they're bound to.
Somebody--
Audience: Here's your chance.
Lord, if you disagree with some of this, let's have at it.
Audience: That would really get it going.Does somebody want to stand up and say, "I think you're crazy as a loon?" Well, we'll discuss relative sanity, then.
Audience: Laughter.
I'm (can't understand tape) on that subject, too.
Audience: Do they want to challenge you on any of your definitions?
Sure. You want me to read you some more from this?
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
I'm reading from The Urantia Book.
Audience: What page?
Audience: Laughter.
Oh. I'll tell you. This last section I read is on page 1101. It's the entire end of the Paper.
It's Section 7, entitled, "The Acme of Religious Living." The first thing I read you is page 51, starting with paragraph 5. These statements are introduced by the statement, "All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following." We call these 9 points the inevitabilities: Courage, faith, hope, altruism, and so forth.Question.
Audience: Where do you get the word, "Urantia." Is it mentioned in the Bible?
This book tells us that "Urantia" is the name of this world. It's their name for this world.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
The universe supervisor's name. This book claims to be written by people who do not have skin on them. Do I make myself clear?
Audience: Well, I'm not quite sure ...
Audience: Laughter.
It claims authorship that's superhuman. I might as well say that right out in front of everybody.
It's like admitting you're illegitimate. When you call yourself a bastard, what can they say after that?
I mean, you've said it. We might as well this one out on the table.Audience: Laughter.
Audience: It was written by a number of unnamed people?
No, they name themselves in here.
Audience: They name themselves.
Yes. But they're not any names that I ever ran into before, except in the scriptures.
Audience: (Can't understand tape) any number of people (can't understand tape).
Correct
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
That's correct . This book is written in 4 parts.
Audience: Bill, (can't understand tape).
Say this again?
Audience: The authors of the book, they have written their ideas of Urantia?
In part.
Audience: In part
Yes. They write about God, the universe.
Audience: (Can't understand tape) understanding of the Bible and (can't understand tape).
Well, they don't base it particularly on the Bible. They base it on their own personal experience.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
In part, yes. And part of it's a long ways away, too. This book starts out at the center of all things and deals with the subject of God. It proceeds outward, dealing with his associates. It covers the central universe, and comes on out into the evolutionary creation.
It finally gets down to talk about this planet. It gives a history of this planet. And the latter third of the book is devoted to the life and teachings of Jesus.
Audience: Wouldn't that be the criticism you just made of most religions? (can't understand tape).
The book apologizes for dealing with things and says it will shortly be out of date when further scientific discoveries are made.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
It doesn't claim infallibility in that area.
Audience: In other words, it was written for a better understanding of the Bible and everyday life ...
That's one way of looking at it, yes. Yes, they're quite apologetic on their dealing with physical things. As they say, the best we can do is to give you a unified picture as of about where you are now. And this will shortly stand in need of revision, because we cannot anticipate the discoveries of the next 500 years. This would be unearned information.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
When I use the word "people," I'm not referring to human beings.
Audience: You're referring to personalities.
I'm referring to superhuman beings.
Audience: Laughter.
Question?
Audience: Laughter. You got me laughing right there (can't understand tape).
You know, years ago, I used to wonder -
Audience: Laughter.
Years ago I used to think about what would happen when this was published, and I said to myself, "Willy, are you going to have guts enough to stand up in front of people and tell them that this is a revelation that wasn't written by people"? And here I am, saying it.
Did somebody have a point over here?
I'd like to ask you a question. Don't you think the English is rather lovely? The whole book is written in a style that I find very engaging.
Audience: Bill, you might just (can't understand tape) and that you have spent "Y" number of years -- I'll let you fill in the number -- in pursuing it. Tell it in your own words.
I'd rather tell them in yours, Clyde. As far as I can tell, this book is what it claims to be.
I am a very unlikely person to be associated with something like this because I'm a natural born skeptic. I'm not a natural believer. And for a long time, I thought, how can I express an opinion about this book which is totally defensible? And here is the way I elect to word this opinion. If this book is not what it claims to be, I can't prove it. And I've had an excellent opportunity to investigate it for more than 20 years.One of the first things that I checked into, many years ago, was where is the gold-plated Cadillac? You know, there's always a gimmick in something like this, and somebody is banking sums of money. Well, I can't find the gold-plated Cadillac. My personal experience with it is, it's been mildly expensive to be associated with it. I think that's been true of everyone who's been connected with it. It hasn't broken anybody, but it's cost a few dollars to be connected with this thing.
I was very happy when we published our accounting for the money it took to publish this book. And I told the Foundation treasurer, I said, be sure and put down, "Administrative Expense," because I want to write the word., "None" in there. This is usually where all the loot is buried. There was no expense, other than copyright fees and whatever the attorney charged. Beyond that, the rest of it went to the publisher.
One human being got paid to read this book. That was a professional proofreader by the name of Flannigan, a good, devout, Roman Catholic. And I always have wondered what she thought about it.
Audience: Laughter.
We borrowed her from R.R. Donnelly and Sons, and paid her the salary that Donnelly's would have paid her to prepare the text for the printer.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
I never inquired what Flannigan did with the money. It was her money. Let me read you a little piece out of here. They're discussing - I can't use their terminology, because I'll sink into a morass of definitions. So let me use my terminology.
This book presents a concept that we are at point alpha and that God is at point omega. Are you with me? And they're discussing what happens at point beta. Where we go when we leave here. The so-called mansion worlds. Which is what Jesus referred to when he said, "In my Father's house are many mansions."
And they're talking about our relationship to angels up there. And I get quite a kick out of this. They're talking about Recorder-Teachers:
"These angels are all in the chain of recorders extending from the lowest to the highest custodians of the facts of time and the truths of eternity. Some day they will teach you to seek truth as well as fact, to expand your soul as well as your mind. Even now you should learn to water the garden of your heart as well as to seek for the dry sands of knowledge. Forms are valueless when lessons are learned. No chick may be had without the shell, and no shell is of any worth after the chick is hatched. But sometimes error is so great that its rectification by revelation would be fatal to those slowly emerging truths which are essential to its experiential overthrow. When children have their ideals, do not dislodge them; let them grow. And while you are learning to think as men, you should also be learning topray as children.
"Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct. Evil is a transgression of law, not a violation of the rules of conduct pertaining to life, which is the law. Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth. The creation of new pictures out of old facts, the restatement of parental life in the lives of offspring--these are the artistic triumphs of truth. The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle--these constitute falseness. But the fetish of factualized truth, fossilized truth, the iron band of so-called unchanging truth, holds one blindly in a closed circle of cold fact. One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth." (554.last,555.1-2)
Isn't that intriguing?
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
Yes, you're on page 554, starting with the last paragraph. Would you like a little more of that? Style? They're talking about the Ministering Reserves:
" ... these transition ministers draw the nearest to humans of all orders of seraphim, and many of your leisure moments will be spent with them. Angels take delight in service and, when unassigned, often minister as volunteers. The soul of many an ascending mortal has for the first time been kindled by the divine fire of the will-to-service through personal friendship with the volunteer servers of the seraphic reserves." (555.3)
"From them you will learn to let pressure develop stability and certainty; to be faithful and earnest and, withal, cheerful; to accept challenges without complaint and to face difficulties and uncertainties without fear. They will ask: If you fail, will you rise indomitably to try anew? If you succeed, will you maintain a well-balanced poise--a stabilized and spiritualized attitude--throughout every effort in the long struggle to break the fetters of material inertia, to attain the freedom of spirit existence?" (555.4)
I like that part there. They're almost as afraid of success as they are of failure.
"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. And from them you will learn to suffer less through sorrow and disappointment, first, by making fewer personal plans concerning other personalities, and then, by accepting your lot when you have faithfully performed your duty." (555.5)
"You will learn that you increase your burdens and decrease the likelihood of success by taking yourself too seriously. Nothing can take precedence over the work of your status sphere--this world or the next. 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. But though the work is important, the self is not. 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. Self-importance, not work-importance, exhausts immature creatures; it is the self element that exhausts, not the effort to achieve. You can do important work if you do not become self-important; you can do several "things as easily as one if you leave yourself out. Variety is restful; monotony is what wears and exhausts. Day after day is alike--just life or the alternative of death." (555. last)
Interesting? No questions? No comments?
Audience: What page?
That's on 555, one, two, paragraph three. It's going right on from where I was reading.
Audience: (Can't understand tape). The what?
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
Oh. From this book I get a picture of thing, meaning, and value- that's right from the book, incidentally -- which helps me a great deal in thinking straight. I can accept science, and I can have a religion. I just don't have any conflict between them. Because my religion stays in the domain of values. My science stays in the domain of things. And I'm very intrigued to reach out with philosophy to hook up the two. This is all the way through the book.
The first 10 Papers -- or chapters -- in this book deal with Deity. The 11th and 12th chapters deal with the material universe, and a material governor of the material universe. As they say, God is spirit, but Paradise is not. Paradise is the absolute of things. Or, stated simply, it is the machine which God built for the same reason that we build machines. To perform routine and repetitive acts. The acts of material governance of a material creation.
You know, if you stay quiet, I'll read you some more.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
I don't know. If I were to guess -- we go from alpha to omega -I would guess 50 billion years. This book deals with concepts that are large. There's an innocent little paragraph in Paper 11. It's only about so much text. But I worked out the mathematics that are implied in this paragraph, and I found myself dealing with exponents of 4 digits. That's a very big number. Exponents running into 4 digits. That's the biggest number I've ever had any personal dealings with. That's bigger than a jillion, that's a gazillion. Question
Audience: I think I (can't understand tape). If we have to go to work out our particular karma through this evolutionary process, (can't understand tape), and you have the father's plan on which to do this, my question is, why were we given volition (can't understand tape) why were we given volition before we came? (can't understand tape).
I'm having to work on 2 levels. I know what you mean by "karma," and I'll try and relate it to this book. Is anybody here unfamiliar with the term karma? Well, karma is simply this. This is good Buddhism or good Hinduism. When you die, if you have any unfinished business, you've got to be reborn again to finish the business. That's as simply, I think, as you can state it
We don't start with any pre-existent karma. Whatever unfinished business we have, is of origin in this life. This is the first life. The concept of karma is not used in the Papers, but I can relate it to the Papers. It's not inconsistent with their teaching. Because when you wake up on beta, having left alpha, you wake up there with all of your unfinished business. The only thing that's happened to you is this. You now speak of death in the past tense. You have died. It's not that you're going to die. There's one other difference. The working out of karma generally supposes a spiraling operation. Mostly right here on this space stage. And you spiral up, or if you're a louse, you spiral down, you know? You wind up with more karma. You've got more debits than credits. You've got a bigger overdraft to work out .
The Papers teach that the thing is a straightaway ride, embracing many lives, many stopping places, but you never retrace your steps. From alpha to omega.
But the concept of karma, continuity, is not inconsistent with these teachings.
Audience: I don't think I made my question clear. All right
Audience: Let me give a simple example. In your last life, hypothecate that you were extremely selfish, so in order to work out this problem, you come back. And before you were born, you knew that this was the thing that you had to work out, and yet, your next life, through volition that God has given you, and free will, you pile up more (can't understand tape) and credits and so forth. The inconsistency that I see is, why would you have a plan to work out in the first place, and then turn around and let God give you a weapon with which not to work the plan out?
Well, let me again reiterate: There was no previous life. This is the first life.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
Audience: Thank you, Bill, thanks a lot.
This is the first life. And, you do have free will. And you have it for the simple reason that God wants children and not robots.
Let me appeal to those of you who have experienced parenthood, either biologic or sociologic. One's as valid as the other. Consider a sultry Saturday afternoon. It's muggy. The air conditioner is broken down. And the children are being utter little savages. They have thrown things at each other. You have tried psychology. It's failed. You've tried reason. Logic. Philosophy. Religion. They've all failed. At this point, you apply brute force. And it succeeds, because you're bigger than the children. That's the only reason it works. You put them to bed, in separate rooms. You do this so they won't damage each other.
Audience: Laughter.
And then you retire to wherever you retire, and you contemplate your failure as a parent. Have any of you had experiences like this?
Audience: Laughter.
Or do you rationalize? Rationalizing is "lying to yourself".
Audience: Laughter.
Now, at this point, you are in a position -- especially if the children are very young -- to get just a touch of how God must look at mankind and all his hell-raising. Wars and atom bombs and things like that, you know.
Stop and think. If you could trade these kids in for a couple of robots who look just like children, never get out of line, operate perfectly, never do anything nasty or mean, would you make the swap? The thought's horrible, isn't it? Now, what is so horrible about it? It's because the robot could never kiss back. A child can. A child can love you. You can't make the child love you. But the child can love you
And, to me, the evil in the world is a very simple thing for any parent to understand. God wants children, not machinery. And that means he's got to give unwise, immature beings free will -and this makes tragedy inevitable. And there is no other way to have children. And he will cheerfully put up with all our hell-raising for the sake of having sons and daughters. He's not interested in (can't understand tape) power tools.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
It's exciting. Believe me, it's exciting.
Audience: Bill, Mr. Butler --
Yes?
Audience: (Can't understand tape) are these steps, do these steps go with the Greek alphabet?
No, those are my terms. The Papers use different terms. But it would be hard to define them. You know, you get into a lot of discussion on definitions. If I say alpha and omega, everyone knows what I'm talking about. We're at alpha. God is at omega. We hit next beta, then gamma, than delta -- what comes after delta? Epsilon, and so forth.
There's a series of steps which bear different names, but they come in sequence.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
There is a definite number, yes. Here. The first thing they do when we die and wake up. They complete our unfinished business, or give us a chance to. Because we die too soon. And they put us in the -- well, it's sort of like a cosmic incubator. It's not an incubator, it's a planet. But it serves the same purpose in the cosmic economy that an incubator does for a prematurely born baby.
We're entirely too animalistic when death overtakes us. We have yet to eradicate such animal vestigial traits as - and these are horrible -- these are worse than the 10 commandments: Procrastination, equivocation, problem-avoidance, unfairness, ease-seeking. This is the badge of the mammal.
Now, when we have de-animalized ourselves, then they set about to help us achieve real unification of personality. Stop the civil war. You know how you decide to something, but you qualify it, you hedge it? You learn to make whole personality choices. They de-neuroticize us after they've de-animalized us.
At our next spot, they socialize us. They have us live with people who are, by design, difficult to live with. Not mean, just alien. Very alien. Hard to understand. When we learn to live with these folks, we can learn to live with anybody. We have got real chrome-plated ethics.
And then -- but not until then -- do they seriously start to spiritualize us. When we've achieved spirit status, we move on, and guess what we study next? Physics. That came as a shock to me. Then I got to thinking about it. How better could you understand the physical universe than when you have removed yourself from it. You're no longer a physical being. Now you can really understand physics, chemistry, astronomy, and what have you.
At our next tarrying point, we are grounded in philosophy. And at our last tarrying point in time and space, we receive our final, spiritual training. We write our PhD thesis and stand our orals. And we graduate from the university of time and space, and then we matriculate as freshmen in the university of eternity.
Would you like me to read you what the course book offers there? This is good. We have just now gotten to the university of eternity. This is real good. You know, if any of you folks are lazy, I advise you to leave right now. This does not appeal to lazy people.
"These pilgrim helpers, functioning on the seventh circle of Havona worlds, conduct their work for the ascending mortals in three major divisions: first, the supreme understanding of the Paradise Trinity; second, the spiritual comprehension of the Father-Son partnership; and third, the intellectual recognition of the Infinite Spirit Each of these phases of instruction is divided into seven branches of twelve minor divisions of seventy subsidiary groups; and each of these seventy subsidiary groupings of instruction is presented in one thousand classifications. More detailed instruction is provided on subsequent circles, but an outline of every Paradise requirement is taught by the pilgrim helpers." (291.2)
"That, then, is the primary or elementary course which confronts the faith-tested and much-traveled pilgrims of space. But long before reaching Havona, these ascendant children of time have learned to feast upon uncertainty, to fatten upon disappointment, to enthuse over apparent defeat, to invigorate in the presence of difficulties, to exhibit indomitable courage in the face of immensity, and to exercise unconquerable faith when confronted with the challenge of the inexplicable. Long since, the battle cry of these pilgrims became: "In liaison with God, nothing--absolutely nothing--is impossible.'" (291.3)
Someday we graduate from the university of eternity. In the process of our progress through this intriguing final school, we find God. We encounter. And we achieve sufficient recognition to constitute minimum personality contact. This is just the bare recognition of God. And then, on to service. It's an intriguing story.
Audience: (Can't understand tape).
Yes.
Audience: A moment ago, its your interpretation, you two I know (can't understand tape).
A what?
Audience: Students of this book. But-
I am a student. As to whether I'm a teacher or not, that's moot.
Audience: But when your Adjuster (can't understand tape) that you become (can't understand tape) to fuse or not to fuse (can't understand tape) that they become a parent to you in this life (can't understand tape) five years.
Next: Part 2