Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:01 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1369
The following was written by Dr William Sadler and is transcribed from the photo copies of the original manuscripts at the link Larry provided earlier.



10. Criticism: The Urantia Book is a commonplace hodge-podge of verbiage, just such as numerous automatic writers have produced.

I can testify that the Urantia Papers were not the product of automatic writing or any other technique of psychic legerdemain known to me.

While we are not at liberty to tell you the little we know about the technique of the production of the Urantia Papers, we are not forbidden to tell you how we did not get these documents.

UNUSUAL ACTIVITIES OF THE MARGINAL CONSCIOUSNESS. (The subconscious mind)

1. Automatic Writing

2. Automatic Talking
a. Speaking with "tongues."
b. Trance Mediums.
c. Spirit Mediums.
d. Catalepsy.

3. Automatic Hearing -- Clairaudience.
Hearing "voices."

4. Automatic Seeing.
a. Dream States -- Twilight Mentation
b. Visions -- Automatic Dramatization.
c. Hallucinations. (Shifty "Reality" Feelings)

5. Automatic Thinking.
a. Automatic Fearing -- Anxiety Neurosis.
b. Automatic Ideation -- Mental Compulsions.
c. Automatic Judgements -- Intuitions, "Hunches."
d. Automatic Association of Ideas -- Premonitions.
e. Automatic Guessing - E.S.P. Extra-Sensory Perception.
f. Automatic Deductions -- Delusions -- Paranoia.
g. Dominance by Marginal Consciousness -- Dreams and Hypnosis.

6. Automatic Remembering.
a. Clairvoyance -- Automatic Memory Associations.
b. Telepathy - Mind Reading (?)
c. Fortune Telling (Largely Fraudulent).
d. Musical and Mathematical Marvels.

7. Automatic Acting.
a. Automatic Behavior -- (Major Hysteria. Witchcraft.)
b. Automatic Motion -- Motor Compulsions.
c. Automatic Overdrives -- Manic Episodes.
d. Automatic Walking -- Somnambulism.

8. Automatic Personalization.
a. Automatic Forgetting -- Amnesia.
b. Automatic Dissociation -- Double and Multiple Personality
c. Schizophrenia -- Split Personality.

9. Combined and Associated Psychic States

Note:
The technique of the reception of the Urantia Book in English in no way parallels or impinges upon any of the above phenomenon of the marginal consciousness.

http://ubhistory.org/Documents/AN195805 ... erW_27.pdf


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
fanofVan wrote:
Personally, it is my contention and the conclusion of all empirical evidence known to me that channeling does not and has never factually occurred anywhere at any time by any mortal. There certainly are many who claim such power to themselves and many of those have been published and found an eager audience. But publishing and audience "belief" in the claims does not substantiate in any way the accuracy of those claims.


There's been a lot of research, some of it quite rigorous, but I grant you the situation is, in general, pretty confusing. But I'm not really interested in trying to defend the general authenticity of mediumship or channeling.

Quote:
And that's the rub here. To confuse the delivery of the UB with such falsehood logically results in the conclusion that the UB is also fraudulent in its claims. The UB is not true as an example of something else's fallacy nor is it false by the example of the invalidity of channeling. Your reasoning is as flawed as the presumptive acceptance of the claims of channelers, past and/or present/future.


I'm willing to grant that the delivery of the Papers was a phenomenon quite unlike channeling, at least for the sake of the discussion. Dr. Sadler himself claimed to be baffled by it, but he did claim it "in no way paralleled or impinged upon" mediumship, automatic writing, automatic speech, and so on. I'm not challenging that claim.

But that claim only applies to the appearance of the Papers themselves. It does not apply to the decades of interactions with celestial beings that took place before, during, and after the Papers were manifested. Based on what we know of some of those interactions, from Dr. Sadler's own descriptions of them, there is simply no plausible denying that what took place would count as channeling, according to the accepted contemporary understanding of that term. Discarnate personalities spoke through the sleeping subject, using his vocal apparatus, if Dr. Sadler is to be believed. That is exactly what anybody today understands by "channeling".

Quote:
The indifference of the sleeping subject and the non-participation of the material mind and body of the sleeping subject is a most unique claim bearing no similarities at all to the list of "psychic phenomena" provided by Dr. Sadler...who personally, and for decades, assumed the sleeping subject WAS engaged in such. But the eventual conclusion was that there were no similarities and no personal participation by the sleeper in either the oral or written exchanges which occurred.


Obviously, the sleeping subject's body was used, in the case of at least some of the oral communications. Dr. Sadler described the phenomenon.

It's one thing to claim that the Papers were not created by means of channeling. It's another to say that no channeling ever took place in connection with the Contact Commission's interactions with celestial beings. The latter claim is directly contradicted by Dr. Sadler's own description of the phenomena.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1369
Todd,

I think it's safe to say what you're referring to as "channeling" is addressed in the text as follows:

(110:5.6) In varying degrees and increasingly as you ascend the psychic circles, sometimes directly, but more often indirectly, you do communicate with your Adjusters. But it is dangerous to entertain the idea that every new concept originating in the human mind is the dictation of the Adjuster. More often, in beings of your order, that which you accept as the Adjuster's voice is in reality the emanation of your own intellect. This is dangerous ground, and every human being must settle these problems for himself in accordance with his natural human wisdom and superhuman insight.

(110:6.4) When the development of the intellectual nature proceeds faster than that of the spiritual, such a situation renders communication with the Thought Adjuster both difficult and dangerous. Likewise, overspiritual development tends to produce a fanatical and perverted interpretation of the spirit leadings of the divine indweller. Lack of spiritual capacity makes it very difficult to transmit to such a material intellect the spiritual truths resident in the higher superconsciousness. It is to the mind of perfect poise, housed in a body of clean habits, stabilized neural energies, and balanced chemical function—when the physical, mental, and spiritual powers are in triune harmony of development—that a maximum of light and truth can be imparted with a minimum of temporal danger or risk to the real welfare of such a being. By such a balanced growth does man ascend the circles of planetary progression one by one, from the seventh to the first.

(118:8.3) The spirit liberates, and the mechanism limits, the function of will. Imperfect choice, uncontrolled by mechanism, unidentified with spirit, is dangerous and unstable.

(100:5.6) If one is disposed to recognize a theoretical subconscious mind as a practical working hypothesis in the otherwise unified intellectual life, then, to be consistent, one should postulate a similar and corresponding realm of ascending intellectual activity as the superconscious level, the zone of immediate contact with the indwelling spirit entity, the Thought Adjuster. The great danger in all these psychic speculations is that visions and other so-called mystic experiences, along with extraordinary dreams, may be regarded as divine communications to the human mind. In times past, divine beings have revealed themselves to certain God-knowing persons, not because of their mystic trances or morbid visions, but in spite of all these phenomena.

(112:3.7) Upon death the Thought Adjuster temporarily loses personality, but not identity; the human subject temporarily loses identity, but not personality; on the mansion worlds both reunite in eternal manifestation. Never does a departed Thought Adjuster return to earth as the being of former indwelling; never is personality manifested without the human will; and never does a dis-Adjustered human being after death manifest active identity or in any manner establish communication with the living beings of earth. Such dis-Adjustered souls are wholly and absolutely unconscious during the long or short sleep of death. There can be no exhibition of any sort of personality or ability to engage in communications with other personalities until after completion of survival. Those who go to the mansion worlds are not permitted to send messages back to their loved ones. It is the policy throughout the universes to forbid such communication during the period of a current dispensation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4086
Todd and BigAl....thank you for your reasoned responses. We will agree to disagree then.

One thing though...my claim is that there is no such thing as channeling. Now one would need to believe the Papers to accept their substantiation of my claim.

The Papers claim that all which enters the mind by all the ministers and ministries of mind (and which are true and valid contact with mind) are defined as auto/personal revelation. I don't want you or any other to doubt my firm belief in this form of contact...to the one and for the one.

The only other form of revelation is claimed to be epochal and but 5 of those in our history.

So, other than hair splitting the definition of channeling, is the possibility that no one has the power to act as an intermediary between any spirit ministry or specified celestial or disembodied spirit to or for any other human.

I just think it important to disentangle the auto/personal revelation reality and potential from channeling messages, news, warnings, the future, etc. that originate in any mortal mind.

Note the repeated warnings about "danger" in nod's posted text: "....The great danger in all these psychic speculations is that visions and other so-called mystic experiences, along with extraordinary dreams, may be regarded as divine communications to the human mind."

So, for those who wish to give credence to other mortal minds to hear, speak to and for, celestials as an intermediary, that is your choice. But then, isn't that conversation best held personally as we are endowed by the same circuitry and ministries of mind and spirit? Why would any seeker or ascender surrender their own sovereignty and relationship with the Spirits of Father, Mother, and Son in favor of that which comes by way of another mortal's mind?

That is what I find most perplexing.

8)


Last edited by fanofVan on Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:27 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4086
I should also say, as an elaboration on auto/personal revelation, that I believe this is the very source of all "inspired" writings and other expressions of its reception by the mortal mind. There, in mortal mind, it is subjected to our personal level of insight, comprehension, experiential context, personal perspective, wisdom...and limited by the ability to write or otherwise express that personal experience.

I think many such claims of "channeling" are, rather, the mortal minded expressions of personal revelation as diluted and distorted by the mortal mind.

The quality of the expression of auto/personal revelation will always be inferior to its actual content and meaning.

Just wanted to give auto/personal revelation its due and recognize its power in mind to inspire its expression. This is not channeling...it may be inspired expression or it may also be pure delusion and mysticism....or perhaps just pure fakery! One must be cautious in swallowing the camel of someone else's experience and its expression when offered to us or for us or on behalf of us related to morontial or spiritual beings. We are given fair warning in the Papers.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:23 am +0000
Posts: 818
Greetings,

It's my understanding that personal revelation is not translatable by the material level of mind. It is an experience beyond words. Attempting to put it into words causes almost ridiculous distortion. Some folks think that the source of this distortion is the mystical realm and therefore give it misplaced value. Personal revelation of truth is a soul level revelation and the soul functions only on morontia levels. Trying to force a quart of morontia experience into a pint of material mind simply cannot be done.

Channeling has nothing at all to do with the soul. Channelers seem to have no trouble explaining their thoughts in great detail. But personal revelation is an experience beyond just thinking. It's an experience, not a mental exercise, and experiences are difficult to explain. Just try explaining the experience of parenthood to a non-parent. Try explaining your love for your wife when she doubts it. Religious experiences are even harder to explain, which is why faith-trust is so necessary. How often when you try to explain experience are you left saying, "You'll just have to believe me"? There's no authority there; but with channelers, you'll find that most insist they do have authority to say what they say. In fact, many demand you take heed of their authority to speak for the "other side".

Channeling is a subconscious mental exercise attained by lowering the frequency of brain waves (a.k.a., self-hypnosis, trance). Personal revelation is a superconscious experience and has nothing at all to do with brain waves. Brain waves are physical energy. Soul energy is morontial. Mind energy may overlap somewhere along the spectrum, but certainly not within the subconscious mind. We are given a definite road map to the superconscious in 196:3:31: first self-consciousness, then soul-consciousness and finally superconsciousness. There's no mention at all about subconsciousness.

The levels of mind are subconscious, conscious, superconscious. The conscious mind can sometimes become aware of what lies below, and can also sometimes become aware of what lies above. The road to each of those levels, however, is very different and they should not become confused, one with the other.

In Friendship,
Rexford


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4086
Thanks Rexford....well said. However, I'd like your take on the 23rd Psalm and John's personal revelation which he wrote down, with obviously inadequate concepts and experience to express.

We are taught that the Papers not only include over 1000 of humanity's highest concepts but also that it contains a couple of thousand sayings or thoughts that were true or as true as the human mind could express. Where did the quotes in the History of Religion and those teachings come from....if not inspired by auto/personal revelation?

I offer only questions and not argument by my query. People are inspired and they express that received if not precisely that which was "sent" or given. I think personal revelation and intuition and discernment and epiphany combine in ways which do offer a transcendent experience in human mind. But I confess I'm fishing and groping here.

8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:23 am +0000
Posts: 818
Greetings Brad,

You wrote:
fanofVan wrote:
I'd like your take on the 23rd Psalm


I think it's pretty clear that a seraphic evangel whispered it to a young shepherd boy, and he recalled as much as he could. In that case, the psalm was not inspired. It was spoken to him from another personality outside of himself. If you're asking how he heard it, I can't say. There are plenty of people walking around today who believe they have heard a word or two coming from somewhere outside themselves during a time of crisis. The 23rd psalm is a crisis psalm in that it is meant to strengthen the soul.

Are you asking how a shepherd boy heard an angel speak to him? I'm guessing the same way that Mary heard Gabriel speak to her. Also, are you equating inspiration with personal revelation? I don't think they are the same thing. Inspiration can come from anywhere, whereas revelation can only come from one place. I'll explain more later. Unfortunately, I have responsibilities this evening. Maybe later tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience,
Rex


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4086
Rexford...thanks for the reply and take all the time you need....no hurry or urgency. No, I don't "equate" revelation and inspiration, but I would allow for some connection between the first and the second (not the other way around)...revelation is not inspired but revelation may inspire. If that makes sense?

92:4.1 (1007.1) Revelation is evolutionary but always progressive. Down through the ages of a world’s history, the revelations of religion are ever-expanding and successively more enlightening. It is the mission of revelation to sort and censor the successive religions of evolution. But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented. Thus must and does revelation always keep in touch with evolution. Always must the religion of revelation be limited by man’s capacity of receptivity.

94:6.3 (1033.6) Lao-tse built directly upon the concepts of the Salem traditions when he declared Tao to be the One First Cause of all creation. Lao was a man of great spiritual vision. He taught that man’s eternal destiny was “everlasting union with Tao, Supreme God and Universal King.” His comprehension of ultimate causation was most discerning, for he wrote: “Unity arises out of the Absolute Tao, and from Unity there appears cosmic Duality, and from such Duality, Trinity springs forth into existence, and Trinity is the primal source of all reality.” “All reality is ever in balance between the potentials and the actuals of the cosmos, and these are eternally harmonized by the spirit of divinity.”

Me here: Is "spiritual vision" the same as personal revelation? And wouldn't the "religion of revelation" also be the same? Note the phrases...."...successively more enlightening." and "....limited by man's capacity of receptivity." These appear to me to indicate that revelation is mindal and that such personal revelation is also inspiring to the mind and does often lead to some form of mortal expression of such revelation.

You say above: "Attempting to put it into words causes almost ridiculous distortion." I heartily agree and point to John's vision which was revealed to him as a primary example of the potential for such distortions and ultimately, in this case, the very sad specter of further elaborations and prostitutions of distortions which have had a most terrible result within Christianity as one of the primary sources of apocalyptic expectations and the eternal suffering and other primitivisms (like an angry and vengeful god) shouted from the pulpits of hell fire and damnation ever devised...and ever since. This is the potential of believing that personal revelation is for others and that we are able to understand it, describe it, and ascribe it to give meaning or value to others.

You say: "Channeling has nothing at all to do with the soul." I not only agree but would claim further that it also has nothing whatsoever to do with mind...not true mind nor the ministry of mind....except for the power of mind to distort, delude, and self deceive by the siren's call of self importance.

There is no such thing as "channeling", which means mortal mind as and to be the device and conduit of revelation or messages for others....simply does not exist and no one here has offered any example or evidence that mortal mind is designed to or capable of such "transmissions" from the gods through a human being for other mortals. It is but an example of a most primitive belief, that some cling to and often, so desperately, or that others make such claims of self importance to elevate their own status among mortals.

101:4.3 (1109.4) Truth is always a revelation: autorevelation when it emerges as a result of the work of the indwelling Adjuster; epochal revelation when it is presented by the function of some other celestial agency, group, or personality.

101:6.4 (1111.8) The evolutionary type of knowledge is but the accumulation of protoplasmic memory material; this is the most primitive form of creature consciousness. Wisdom embraces the ideas formulated from protoplasmic memory in process of association and recombination, and such phenomena differentiate human mind from mere animal mind. Animals have knowledge, but only man possesses wisdom capacity. Truth is made accessible to the wisdom-endowed individual by the bestowal on such a mind of the spirits of the Father and the Sons, the Thought Adjuster and the Spirit of Truth.

Me here: the work at hand is personal progress in the spirit, growth and wisdom by experience. I keep waiting for someone to explain to me how the words from the mouth and mind of another mortal contributes to this absolute requirement for our destiny potential. Who has what to say to whom to bring soul progression to another by the shortcut of news, commands, warnings, and predictions? Nobody...that's who.

Thanks again Rexford....you always make one think....and study....and learn more thereby. 8)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:23 am +0000
Posts: 818
Greetings Brad,

You ask: Is "spiritual vision" the same as personal revelation?

I think spiritual vision is the same as spiritual insight. Is spiritual insight the same as personal revelation? Not always. I think that spiritual insight is the road to personal revelation. Spiritual insight requires discrimination of spiritual values, and all we can do is discover them and choose them.

I think personal revelation is, at it's heart, a personal religious experience with the personality of God within the soul. Here is where the divine nature of God is revealed and we learn how to identify with it, to adopt it as our own through choice. When God reveals himself, he reveals the true meaning of values on a spiritual level, values that can become part of our character if we accept them and recognize them as something we want to hold onto forever.

True revelation occurs when we attempt to live those values and see with spiritual eyes the tremendous transformational ability they have, not only for ourselves, but for others as well. And that's essentially doing the will of God, living the truth. I don't think you can have personal revelation without choosing to live what you've discovered with spiritual insight. It wasn't an accident that Jesus revealed the nature of God by living the truth; as needs be our own personal revelation of God.

Truth is living; the Spirit of Truth is ever leading the children of light into new realms of spiritual reality and divine service. You are not given truth to crystallize into settled, safe, and honored forms. Your revelation of truth must be so enhanced by passing through your personal experience that new beauty and actual spiritual gains will be disclosed to all who behold your spiritual fruits and in consequence thereof are led to glorify the Father who is in heaven. 176:3:7

I suppose that this is how personal revelation becomes inspirational to others, by passing through our own personal experience as spiritual fruit. We all get inspired by spiritual fruits when we encounter them, whether in person or otherwise. But mostly in person, I think. When I relate to a truly beautiful and good person, I'm changed for the better. And that is always inspiring.

In Friendship,
Rexford


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1369
(171:7.1) Jesus spread good cheer everywhere he went. He was full of grace and truth. His associates never ceased to wonder at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth. You can cultivate gracefulness, but graciousness is the aroma of friendliness which emanates from a love-saturated soul.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:16 pm +0000
Posts: 495
I think it's instructive to look at what Dr. Sadler himself had to say about the phenomena:

In the interests of scientific accuracy on the one hand, and of strict fairness on the other, it becomes necessary to explain that there are one or two exceptions to the general statement that all cases of psychic phenomena which have come under my observation have turned out to be those of auto-psychism. It is true that practically all the physical phenomena have proved to be fraudulent, while the psychic phenomena are almost invariably explainable by the laws of psychic projection, transference, reality shifting, etc. But many years ago I did meet one trance medium, a woman now deceased, whose visions, revelations, etc., were not tainted with spiritualism. As far as my knowledge extends, at no time did she claim to be under the influence of spirit guides or controls, or to communicate messages from the spirits of departed human beings. Her work was largely of a religious nature and consisted of elevated sayings and religious admonitions. I never had the privilege of making a thoroughgoing psychic analysis of this case, and am not in a position to express myself as to the extent to which her revelations originated in the subconscious realms of her own mind. I make mention of the case merely to record the fact that I have met one instance of psychic phenomena apparently of the trance order that was not in any way associated with spiritualism.

The other exception has to do with a rather peculiar case of psychic phenomena, one which I find myself unable to classify, and which I would like very much to narrate more fully; I cannot do so here, however, because of a promise which I feel under obligation to keep sacredly. In other words, I have promised not to publish this case during the lifetime of the individual. I hope sometime to secure a modification of that promise and be able to report this case more fully because of its interesting features. I was brought in contact with it, in the summer of 1911, and I have had it under my observation more or less ever since, having been present at probably 250 of the night sessions, many of which have been attended by a stenographer who made voluminous notes.

A thorough study of this case has convinced me that it is not one of ordinary trance. While the sleep seems to be quite of a natural order, it is very profound, and so far we have never been able to awaken the subject when in this state; but the body is never rigid, and the heart action is never modified, tho respiration is sometimes markedly interfered with. This man is utterly unconscious, wholly oblivious to what takes place, and unless told about it subsequently, never knows that he has been used as a sort of clearing house for the coming and going of alleged extra-planetary personalities. In fact, he is more or less indifferent to the whole proceeding, and shows a surprising lack of interest in these affairs as they occur from time to time.

In no way are these night visitations like the seances associated with spiritualism. At no time during the period of eighteen years' observation has there been a communication from any source that claimed to be the spirit of a deceased human being. The communications which have been written, or which we have had the opportunity to hear spoken, are made by a vast order of alleged beings who claim to come from other planets to visit this world, to stop here as student visitors for study and observation when they are en route from one universe to another or from one planet to another.
[emphases mine]

First, by "auto-psychism", Dr. Sadler was referring to the content of the alleged communications originating in the mind of the medium/subject/channeler. Again, the term "channeling" wasn't in use then. Where there is auto-psychism, there isn't what one would consider "true" or "real" channeling or mediumship. So, Dr. Sadler's point is that in his opinion all such activities aren't what they seem to be, with two exceptions, which he could not classify as auto-psychism.

The first exception may have been Ellen G. White, but since he doesn't name her we can never be certain of this identification. Nonetheless, he does characterize her as a "trance medium" but one whose activities were "untainted by spiritualism." That means that he at least recognizes the possibility that there could be such a thing as a trance medium who is not engaged in spiritualism. But what would that even mean?

He tells us the answer: She didn't appear to be using "guides or controls" or to be receiving messages from dead human beings. So obviously, as Dr. Sadler understood these terms, it was the use of guides or controls, and the alleged receiving of messages from the deceased, that was the mark of "spiritualism", but not the mark of trance mediumship in itself. But since he didn't have the chance to study Mrs. White (or whoever) while in the trance state, he has no further comment, beyond his opinion that her deliverances were not the product of her own mind.

Turning to the second exception, we're now dealing with the sleeping subject himself. Dr. Sadler expresses the view that his was "no ordinary trance" in several respects, but of course it's well known that trance states in general can and do vary quite a lot. It's well documented, for example, that the well-known trance medium Mrs. Piper was not able to be awakened by smelling salts and jabbing of needles into her skin. So the sleeping subject was not the first person to be seen in a trance state as deep as what Dr. Sadler describes.

Finally, Dr. Sadler repeats the point that the case of the sleeping subject differs from spiritualism in that there is no alleged contact with deceased human beings. But there is communication with "a vast order of alleged beings," including "student visitors." That is, there is communication with someone.

And at least some of the time, this communication involved the other beings using the speech organs of the sleeping subject, as we have described in Larry Mullins's account, purportedly based on eyewitness recollections:

Lena Sadler noticed the subject was moistening his lips. “Perhaps he wants to say something. Perhaps we should ask a question,” she said. “How are you feeling?” To the great astonishment of everyone, the subject spoke! But the voice was peculiar, not his normal voice. The voice identified itself as a student visitor on an observation mission from another planet! This “being” apparently was conversing through the sleeping subject by some means. Both doctors thought they were simply observing a phenomena known as automatic speaking. This activity involves the subconscious mind, and can take place without the awareness of the patient. A History of the Urantia Papers (Kindle Locations 770-775). Kindle Edition.

So, we have testimony that celestial beings of various sorts conversed with the Sadlers (and others), at least sometimes using the physical resources of the sleeping subject's body, and that in their judgment this phenomenon was not "automatic speaking", which they understood to be only a form of auto-psychism. Today the term "ideomotor activity" would be used.

Sadler's own account from The Mind at Mischief, quoted above, was written in 1928, published in early 1929, well before any Papers were received.

My point is simply this: If you look at Dr. Sadler's own description of what went on, and you look at the range of phenomena now referred to by the term "channeling", the two obviously coincide. Channeling, as the term is currently used, is not simply about talking to dead people. It refers generally to any alleged contact with non-mortal personalities, especially when the mind of the channel is (allegedly) bypassed and the non-mortal personality supposedly "speaks through" the channel. Dr. Sadler's emphasis on the passivity of the sleeping subject with respect to the communications matches what is often reported with respect to channeling phenomena today.

I'm not making any claim about whether contemporary channeling phenomena are authentic. I'm only describing what they purport to be. If you simply apply the concept of channeling to the phenomena described by Dr. Sadler, you get a very good fit. For this reason, it is simply misleading to claim, as some do, that what went on back then at 533 Diversey is utterly different from what is now understood by "channeling."

In particular, the argument "All modern channeling is fake. The oral contact phenomena preceding the Urantia Papers were not fake. Therefore, the oral contact phenomena preceding the Urantia Papers were not channeling" is unsound. Even if all modern channeling is fake, it's not fake by definition, and it wouldn't follow that all channeling phenomena that ever occurred are fake.

_________________
Todd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1369
With all due respect to everybody, aren't we splitting hairs again? Belief of channeling's validity is one thing. Is it real or not? To me it doesn't matter.

When we look at the text of the Urantia Book isn't it clear that it is singly the most unusual writing known? That it stands out from anything else ever written hands down?

The text when taken solely on the merits of what it says to me is beyond doubt. No human wrote it. No human could ever write such a thing. Somebody who is involved with man's creation and administration did though. With authority that is higher than mere credential.

It's most interesting that the man associated with the advent of the Urantia Book was perhaps the most respected debunker of so-called psychic phenomenon at the time, Dr. William Sadler. He supremely doubted EVERYTHING, and very carefully and scientifically proved fraud to the best of his ability. Who better to use as the channel by which the book made its appearance? All this taken together speaks for itself.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:45 pm +0000
Posts: 47
Thank you Todd. I believe you have shown that, although there may not have been direct "channelling" involved with the actual physical production of the papers, it was certainly involved in the circumstances surrounding the sleeping subject. Perhaps we are splitting hairs. I think we can all agree that the Urantia information came from somewhere else.

For the record, I have no agenda. I am not part of a larger organization. I am not trying to convert the forum members to another belief system. I am just a sincere seeker that has discovered the Urantia Book and am intrigued by it. But where I differ from some of the veterans on here is that I haven't made up my mind if I accept it completely as the whole Truth. Also, I would NEVER ever say that there is no other Truth out there. That's what I object to. That's Fundamentalism and Dogmatism. It's fine to say your version is better, more complete, from a higher source, whatever. But you just can't say there is no other Truth out there. (You guys know the parable of the blind men and the elephant, right?)

If I have an agenda at all, it is only to try to get some of the more fundamentalist veterans to be aware of their biases and less disparaging about other sources. Believe what you want, but please don't label everything else as fake, fraudulent, or delusional. The thing I find most ironic is that some of you don't even see that the TUB could be viewed exactly the same way by more mainstream religious folks. ("What do you mean there is new information besides the King James Bible? Impossible! And you want me to believe it was delivered by angels to Dr. Sadler in the mid-1900's? That's crazy! There is no other information other than what was given by Moses and Jesus. Sadler must be delusional or faking it!...").

Of course people are going to want to know about the origins of the Urantia Book. It is a major factor in judging its credibility. You are not going to be able to dodge this question. You are just not. But I am open to believing it is what it says it is.

And I agree that more important than the origin of the Book is the contents. It is an amazing book. So much information. How could any human know all that? I get the same impression that it would be difficult for any one human - or even a small group of humans - to have been able to put it together on their own.

So where we differ might be less than you think.

In the end, I suppose I am really just making a plea for the more dogmatic and fundamentalist forum members to be a little more open-minded about information from other sources.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 4086
Such a "plea" presupposes there is validity to the claims made that UB "fundamentalists" are unread and narrow minded. A rather insulting claim don't you think....and broadly brushed about to boot. A UB fundamentalist, to me, is someone who claims only that the UB says what it says and does not say what it does not...simple. No one here requires any other to also believe the UB is what it claims to be - only that it be studied and quoted by its contents. Which may be compared/contrasted with any other written material or personal beliefs or institutional creeds and dogmas.

The UB claims it includes over 1000 of humanity's highest concepts originated by humanity and contains over 2000 direct, if unattributed, quotes from human sources. The UB is itself a witness and gives its own testimony to the fact that truth may be found everywhere and anywhere in mortal experience....the UB claims no exclusivity to truth and I've not read a single poster here who makes such a claim either. I still read the Tao, and study Zen koans, and read the Dali Lama, Gibran, and the Bible and poetry (especially cowboy poetry) and biblical apocrypha, etc. There is obviously great scholarship diversity here with many regular contributors who quote other books as we discuss the wide spectrum of knowledge articulated in the UB.

You are the one making sweeping claims "about" the UB...note the title of this topic....and despite your claims of no agenda, you come here repeatedly, year after year, making this same false claim. What's one to think about that?

This is a UB study group and site...that's what we do here. Is there something within the book itself you might wish to discuss?

What material from "other sources" do you wish to discuss in comparison/contrast to the UB? :roll: 8) :?:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google Feedfetcher


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group