Q: I have listened to many MP3s from the CD of The Urantia Book. I am so grateful for what I have read so far and have been greatly blessed. However, I have run into a section that causes me great distress:
“The difficulty of executing such a radical program on Urantia consists in the absence of competent judges to pass upon the biologic fitness or unfitness of the individuals of your world races. Notwithstanding this obstacle, it seems that you ought to be able to agree upon the biologic disfellowshiping of your more markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial stocks.” (51:4.8)
I can’t make this read as anything other than extremely racist and (since the white race has blue ancestry) particularly white supremacist. Talking about “unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial “stocks” seems to totally negate the loving Fatherhood of God. I am white, by the way and I find it offensive. There is no way I could recommend this book to my black friends.
A: I understand you are a new reader and have yet to finish a first reading of The Urantia Book . There are many sections in the book that can bring consternation when considered outside the context of the full revelation, race being one of them. It’s usually suggested that a first and complete reading of the book, from front to back, be undertaken as quickly as possible, without attempting to comprehend all that’s being read — this provides an overall context and defines the scope of the material. Subsequent reading can then delve deeper into the terminology and meanings. It has been suggested too that rather than being written like a text book The Urantia Book is more like a symphony with themes and melodies being repeated in a myriad of variations throughout the whole — one has to listen to a symphony more than once to get a basic understanding of the composition.
Regarding race, regarding humanity in general and regarding the composition of the book — most of the first 119 out of the 196 Papers are written by highly intelligent beings who have never been human, beings of higher origin than humans, “angels.” As the lowest order of free will creature in existence we humans now find ourselves reading about our origin, nature, and destiny as perceived from a higher and non-human perspective, sources not so sentimental about our shortcomings as we obviously are.
It’s interesting how we’re so aware of the necessity of animal husbandry to produce improved results but feel it is a human right to breed indiscriminately with no regard for the kind of offspring being produced. If I had a choice I’d want to be born into a healthy body with all my arms, legs, fingers, toes, hearing, eyesight, and normal mental capabilities as opposed simply being left to happenstance and finding myself having less than these normal endowments. That’s the point these teachings of The Urantia Book make — we owe it to our offspring to provide them the best biological vehicle possible. Life on an evolutionary world is challenge enough without also being faced with confronting it in a defective body or with a defective mind.
Specifically, you’ve indicated that the following causes you great distress …
“The difficulty of executing such a radical program on Urantia consists in the absence of competent judges to pass upon the biologic fitness or unfitness of the individuals of your world races. Notwithstanding this obstacle, it seems that you ought to be able to agree upon the biologic disfellowshiping of your more markedly unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial stocks.” (51:4.8)
Why is that distressful? Those words say we humans are reluctant to impose constraints on reproduction because we lack competent judges to pass on the potential fitness of offspring. True. We are however quite scientifically competent at this time in history to predict when it’s highly likely that parents will bear children with various defects or diseases. Because of our over-sentimentality we don’t impose the social constraints we are now competent to impose upon these obvious problem areas, allowing anyone and everyone to do as they reproductively please when it would be a great benefit if such individuals were given incentives to go childless or to adopt rather than to bear children. How is this distressing? This makes logical sense although maybe not the emotional sense we’re so used to reacting to.
Also, note that these statements do not relate to any individual’s worth or fitness for eternal life. That particular is never in question in The Urantia Book, as all of God’s children stand on a equal footing with him, regardless of any defect of biology or heredity.
You’ve also said … “I can’t make this read as anything other than extremely racist and (since the white race has blue ancestry) particularly white supremacist.” One of the profound functions of the teachings of The Urantia Book is to provide a greater context in which to understand your life on earth and your place in the cosmos — certainly a challenge to each and every reader of the book. You’ve taken these particular observations and altered their context to fit a preconceived mold. The paragraph you’ve referred to has nothing to do with racism or white supremacy as you’ve interpreted. Consider that there’s probably not a person alive on the planet who doesn’t have some blue ancestry (as well as some of each of the other colors) in their makeup — there’s nothing exclusive to the so-called white race. There is no “black” race on Urantia, just as there are no other pure races. The indigo race, a deep purple hue appeared about 500, 000 years ago along with the other 5 colored races. Africans are of mixed racial heritage just like the rest of humanity, being a mixture primarily of the remnants of the indigo, orange, and green races.
There have been 9 pure-line races over the million year human history of the planet. None exist today — we’re well on our way to full racial blending to fulfill the destiny of a one race world. Of the original 6 colored races can you point to one which The Urantia Book holds above the others? The answer is no. In fact The Urantia Book describes the attributes and shortcomings of each race as well as defining their superior and inferior traits. The only race to be given comparatively high marks is the red race which has nearly been obliterated.
You’ve written … “Talking about unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial stocks seems to totally negate the loving Fatherhood of God.” Is this implying that you don’t recognize such detrimental strains flourishing in the gene pool? The genes with which one is endowed have no correlation to the love of the Father or the development of the individual soul. They do have immense consequence to the quality of life one lives here in the flesh.
You’ve concluded … “I am white, by the way and I find it offensive. There is no way I could recommend this book to my black friends.” The sensitivity to the feelings of your “black friends” is not unusual although you do a disservice by assuming that they couldn’t possibly understand the truth behind the statements you’ve taken offense from when quite possibly their Spirit of Truth led discernment may at this time be superior to your own. Actually, your concern could appear to be an overreaction to what you consider to be shortcomings in your black friends.
Here is an interesting Wrightwood Study, an in-depth analysis of the teachings of The Urantia Book on this topic. You can access this document HERE
Date published: 2021-08-22 16:37:57
