DISSENTING VOICES
(A compilation of internal contradictions and
inconsistencies within The UB)
Those
who promote the teachings of The UB tell us that one of the more
convincing aspects of its authenticity is its internal consistency. We are told that The UB presents a
unified view of religion, science, philosophy, and history that is beyond
reproach. However, there are those of us
(yours truly included among them) who beg to differ.
Listed below is a continuing series of questions for
which two or more divergent answers can be found within the pages of the
so-called Fifth Epochal Revelation.
Otherwise known as internal contradictions and/or inconsistencies, these
conundrums are too numerous for The UB
be taken seriously as a divine revelation, and expose the element of human error
that runs throughout.
For
those who are up to the challenge, feel free to respond with a proposed
solution to the apparent conflict posed by any of the questions posted below,
so that it may be passed on to those in need of resolution. Be forewarned, however, that any information
submitted may in fact backfire on the respondent’s intended purpose by way of
updating the discussion portion of the subject question.
1. The biblical Trinity
consists of how many Gods?
One God:
“‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and all things
therein.’” (131:2.2; citing Genesis 1:1)
Three Gods: “‘Do you not recall how the Scriptures begin
by asserting that “In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the
earth”? This indicates that when that
record was made the Trinity concept of three Gods in one had found lodgment in
the religion of our forebears.’” (142:3.6; “Jesus” citing Genesis 1:1)
Discussion:
Supposedly, it was “Jesus” at the age of 28, along with his philosopher
sidekick Ganid, who hand-selected the passage in 131:2.2 from the Torah, whilst
compiling a collection of the finest passages offered by the world’s religions
during a visit at the great library in
2. Does the Bible teach
monotheism (one God), or tritheism (three Gods)?
Monotheism: “Moses taught monotheism.
Said he: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.’ ‘The Lord he is God. There is none beside
him.’” (92:5.8; citing Deuteronomy 6:4,
Tritheism: “‘From the times of Adam
the teaching of the Paradise Trinity has persisted. Do you not recall how the Scriptures begin by
asserting that “In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth”?’”
(142:3.6; citing Gen. 1:1)
Discussion: Once again, The UB
attempts to play it both ways by claiming that the Bible says one thing here
and another thing there. In this case, a
“Melchizedek of Nebadon” (alleged author of Paper 92) contradicts Jesus of
“Nebadon.” Of course, one can hardly
fault “Melchizedek” for gainsaying “Jesus,” since “Jesus” even contradicted
himself on this same issue during his earthly ministry (see above)!
3. How many Gods does The UB say we should worship?
Only One: “In the highest sense, we worship the Universal
Father and him only.” (5:3.1)
Three: “When we worship the Universal Father, actually we at the
same time worship God the Son and God the Spirit.” (6:2.3)
Discussion:
Taken in conjunction with other UB
passages that depict each member of the Paradise Trinity as a distinct God and
a unique being (6:0.4; 10:5.8; 120:4.3; 161:1.6), the second passage cited
above (6:2.3) promotes the worship of three Gods. This construct amounts to tritheism (three
gods), a form of polytheistic worship.
The biblical Trinity, on the other hand, consists of one God comprising
three, co-equal, co-eternal Persons within the same monotheistic Godhead. The Bible condemns the worship of more than one
god as idolatry (see “A Biblical Evaluation of The UB, Part III”).
4. Do your feelings
determine the validity of religious experience?
Yes: (1) “It is high time that man had a religious
experience so personal and so sublime that it could be realized and
expressed only by ‘feelings that lie too deep for words.’” (99:5.9;
emphasis added) (2) “The new cult must,
like the old, foster sentiment, satisfy emotion, and promote loyalty . .
. .” (87:7.7; emphasis added) (3) “You
cannot perceive spiritual truth until you feelingly experience it, and
many truths are not really felt except in adversity.” (48:7.18; emphasis
added) (4) “3. The emotion designers. These enhancers
and conservators of feeling are those who preserve the sentiments of morontia and the emotions of divinity for the study and
edification of the children of time and for the inspiration and beautification
of morontia progressors and advancing spirits.” (44:6.5; emphasis added) (5) “In the schools of the morontia life
these teachers engage in individual, group, class, and mass teaching. On the
mansion worlds such schools are organized in three general groups of one
hundred divisions each: the schools of thinking, the schools of feeling,
and the schools of doing.” (48:5.6; emphasis added) (6) “The feeling of religious
assurance is more than an emotional
feeling. The assurance of religion transcends the reason of the mind, even
the logic of philosophy.” (101:0.3; emphasis added)
No: (1) “It is your thoughts, not your feelings,
that lead you Godward. . . . [N]either is religion the
offspring of sublime feelings and purely mystical emotions. (101:1.3,4; emphasis added) (2) “The Urantia races are so largely
electrically and chemically controlled, so highly animallike in their common
behavior, so emotional in their ordinary reactions, that it becomes
exceedingly difficult for the Monitors to guide and direct them. You are so
devoid of courageous decisions and consecrated co‑operation that your
indwelling Adjusters find it next to impossible to communicate directly with
the human mind.” (110:4.5; emphasis
added)
Discussion:
The revelators seem confused about this aspect of humanity called emotion. Should we trust our feelings, or shouldn’t
we? Apparently, the answer will depend
on which “revelator” we ask!
5. Does the Book of Job
present an excellent or poor concept of God?
Excellent:
“The Book of Job is a fairly good
reflection of the teachings of the
Poor:
“‘Study the Book of Job just to discover how many wrong ideas of God even good men may honestly entertain; and then
note how even the painfully afflicted Job found the God of comfort and
salvation in spite of such erroneous
teachings.’” (Jesus of Nebadon, 148:6.11; emphasis added)
Discussion:
In Papers 95 and 96, the alleged “Melchizedek” celestial author is attempting
to establish a historical context for the “Salemites.” The Salemites were
disciples of one “Machiventa Melchizedek,” a celestial being who incarnated and
dwelt temporarily in
6. Who
wrote the Book of Job?
Mesopotamians:
“The variegated picture of Deity presented in the Book of Job was the product
of more than a score of Mesopotamian
religious teachers extending over a period of almost three hundred years.”
(A “Melchizedek of Nebadon,” 96:7.5)
Semites:
“‘Have you not read that masterpiece of
Semitic literature—the Scripture story of the afflictions of Job?’” (Jesus
of Nebadon, 148:6.2; emphasis added)
Discussion:
Again, Jesus of Nebadon is at odds with Melchizedek of Nebadon, who makes it
clear that the Book of Job is not of Semitic origin: “Under the leadership of
their sheiks and priests the Hebrews became loosely established in
7. Who sponsored Part III of The
UB?
Gabriel of Salvington: “These papers were sponsored by a Nebadon Corps of
Local Universe Personalities acting by authority of Gabriel of Salvington”
(“The Parts of the Book” title page; cf. “Part III” front page).
Mantutia Melchizedek:
“These papers were authorized by a Nebadon commission of twelve acting under
the direction of Mantutia Melchizedek.” (119:8.9)
Discussion:
Anybody?
8. How
long did the construction of the architectural worlds of our local universe
(Nebadon) take, and what was the progression?
Version 1:
(Local universe: total time just over one billion years; constellations and
local systems immediately thereafter) – “The first completed act of physical
creation in Nebadon consisted in the organization of the headquarters world,
the architectural sphere of Salvington, with its satellites. From the time of
the initial moves of the power centers and physical controllers to the arrival
of the living staff on the completed spheres of Salvington, there intervened a
little over one billion years of your present planetary time. The construction
of Salvington was immediately followed by the creation of the one hundred
headquarters worlds of the projected constellations and the ten thousand
headquarters spheres of the projected local systems of planetary control and
administration, together with their architectural satellites.” (32:2.3)
Version 2:
(Local universe and constellations: total time less than one million years;
systems took 395 billion years) – “Michael of Nebadon, a Creator Son of
Paradise, selected this disintegrating nebula [Andronover] as the site of his
adventure in universe building. Almost immediately the architectural worlds of
Salvington and the one hundred constellation headquarters groups of planets
were begun. It required almost one million years to complete
these clusters of specially created worlds. The local system headquarters
planets were constructed over a period extending from that time [400 billion
years ago] to about five billion years ago.” (57:3.8)
Discussion:
In Version 1, it took over one billion years to construct the headquarters
world of Nebadon called Salvington and its satellites, whereas in Version 2 it
took less than one million years to complete both the headquarters worlds and
those of all 100 constellation systems.
In Version 1, construction of the 100 constellation systems and all
10,000 local systems had “immediately followed” construction of
Salvington. Version 2 indicates that
construction of the local systems took roughly 395 billion years. Exactly how does an angelic construction crew
lose track of hundreds of billions of years and manage to still hold their
job? They must pay horrendous union
dues!
9. When
did lemurs first appear on planet Urantia?
45 million years ago, during the Eocene: “Mammalian life was evolving rapidly. . . . Soon
there were . . . lemurs . . . .” (61:1.4)
30 million years ago, during the Oligocene: “About this time a notable thing occurred in western
Discussion:
Fifteen million years is a big difference, even in geologic time!
10. Are Gabriel and Father Melchizedek ever away from Salvington at
the same time?
No, never:
“Gabriel and the Father Melchizedek are never away from Salvington at the same time,
for in Gabriel’s absence the Father Melchizedek functions as the chief
executive of Nebadon.” (35:1.2; emphasis added).
Yes,
at least once: “When the three
[Peter, James, and John] had been fast asleep for about half an hour, they were
suddenly awakened by a near‑by crackling sound, and much to their
amazement and consternation, on looking about them, they beheld Jesus in
intimate converse with two brilliant beings clothed in the habiliments of the
light of the celestial world. And Jesus’ face and form shone with the
luminosity of a heavenly light. These three conversed in a strange language,
but from certain things said, Peter erroneously conjectured that the beings
with Jesus were Moses and Elijah; in reality, they were Gabriel and the Father
Melchizedek.” (158:1.8, emphasis added; cf. Matthew 17:1-3; Mark
9:2-4; Luke 9:28-30)
Discussion: As Paper 35 explains, the Creator Son and Daughter
Spirit gave birth to the original Melchizedek of our local universe. This “Father Melchizedek” acts as the first
executive associate of the Bright and Morning Star, better known as Gabriel of
Salvington. And according to the Chief
of Archangels acting by authority of Gabriel of Salvington (alleged author of
Paper 35), “Gabriel and the Father Melchizedek are never away from Salvington at
the same time, for in Gabriel’s absence the Father Melchizedek
functions as the chief executive of Nebadon” (35.1:2; emphasis added). But the “Midwayer Commission” (alleged
authors of Part IV of The UB) should
have checked with the Chief of Archangels (and with Gabriel himself, for that
matter) before attempting to explain what “really” happened during Jesus’ visit
on the Mount of Transfiguration!
. . . to be continued
. . .