SPRUNGER ON GARDNER
A Critique of Dr.
Meredith Sprunger’s “Critique” of Martin Gardner’s Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery
by Dale E. Essary
Ordinarily, I would not bother with commenting on reviews of
Martin Gardner’s book Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery (U:TGCM)
that were penned by Urantians who take issue with Gardner’s
exposé of the Urantia movement. In most
cases, the ranting reviews do not warrant the dignity of a reply, and are
better left ignored (and you know who you are).
However, in light of Dr. Meredith Sprunger’s
qualifications as a seasoned theologian,[1]
and out of respect for his position of influence within the Urantia movement,
and because his review at least presents itself in a somewhat civilized (if not
pretentious) manner, his review is worthy of attention. (Sprunger’s
critique of Gardner’s U:TGCM
can be found at
http://urantiabook.org/archive/mjs_archive/mjs_purpose_of_revelation.htm.)
Mind you, Gardner’s
book is in no need of “defending” from the attacks of its detractors, nor is
such the intent of this response. In
fact, there are some elements of Gardner’s book with which I disagree, as his
book, in my opinion, leaves some room for improvement in both style and content
(you can view my original review of Gardner’s U:TGCM at amazon.com,
under the subheading “Engaging expose'
of the Urantia movement,” April 12, 1999). And I would concur to some degree with Dr. Sprunger’s contention that the book is a bit long on
conjecture and personal attacks.
However, the setbacks inherent in Gardner’s
book are greatly overshadowed by the veritable mountain of evidence Gardner
presents in support of his thesis, that The Urantia Book (The UB)
is not a celestial revelation as the book portends, but a tome which origin
resides in the deep recesses of the human imagination. So overwhelming is Gardner’s
body of evidence, in fact, that one reviewer opines that Gardner’s chronicle, despite its “stereotyped and sometimes condescending
remarks,” is “a landmark exposé of the origins of the Urantian movement.”[2]
If it is not the purpose of this review to defend Gardner’s
honor, what then, the reader may wonder, is its purpose? I shall reserve revealing its purpose until
its conclusion. With that said, let’s
get started.
The “Purpose” of “Revelation”
Doctor Sprunger’s review begins
with an overview of the philosophy he has apparently adopted subsequent to his
long years of exposure to The UB on how he has come to terms with its revelational shortcomings.
He warns his readers not to engage in “fundamentalism” when espousing
the teachings of The UB, a mistake made by Christians with the Bible
that should not be repeated for the sake of preserving the spiritual truths
revealed in the so-called Fifth Epochal Revelation. The biblical example of the seven days of
creation is cited by Sprunger, noting that although
this myth is scientifically untenable, it nevertheless serves to portray God as
the source of all creation. But just as Sprunger emulates this position as gleaned from The UB,
so does he inherit its ignorance as to the scientific veracity of the account
in Genesis 1 as acknowledged by scientists and theologians alike. Whereas The UB, in its finite wisdom,
endeavors to pigeonhole the “days” of the creation account into a confining
24-hour-day interpretation, it is apparently unaware of (or refuses to
acknowledge) other equally valid interpretations, such as the day-age or “old
earth” interpretation, with which linguistic studies do not disagree and
science affirms.
Sprunger struggles with the issue
of “demythologizing” The UB because it, as Gardner and others have
pointed out, contains substantial amounts of scientific information that is
either outdated or outright incorrect. Sprunger’s reliance on the cosmology disclaimer is the root
of his philosophy, but this “prime directive” does not work for reasons we will
get to later in this review. Be that as
it may, the problem with Sprunger comparing alleged biblical
“errors” with UB errors is that the excuse often given for the existence
of presumed biblical errors is that the errors were written in a pre-scientific
age. This luxury is not afforded The
UB, as it was written during a time that was well into the age of modern
scientific enlightenment. Even if Sprunger’s contention is true that the scientific “errors”
found in the Bible are understandable in light of their cultural roots, those
found in The UB cannot be relegated to ignorance and are without said
excuse. Moreover, the implied purpose of
pointing out biblical mistakes is to attribute them with human error, thus
renouncing the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration and relegating biblical
fundamentalists as ignorant zealots.
Again, The UB presents itself as a revelation from the minds of
superhuman authors, and Sprunger therefore does The
UB a disservice by attempting to compare the human “errors” of the Bible
with those of The UB.
The Secret of His Success
With this thinly veiled backdrop now fully unfurled, Dr. Sprunger then moves on to his primary purpose—to debunk the
Great Debunker. At this point, Sprunger begins focusing on Gardner’s
book, and I shall in return endeavor to respond to Sprunger’s
words verbatim (in italics) so as not to misrepresent his intentions by
paraphrasing.
Martin Gardner’s recent book, Urantia:
The Great Cult Mystery, is designed to undermine the credibility of The
Urantia Book. To accomplish this purpose Gardner
deals almost entirely with the human concept carriers of the spiritual truths,
not the spiritual truths themselves. In actuality, history may show that it helped
to focus attention on the real spiritual quality of the Fifth Epochal
Revelation (which he totally ignores) that will ensure its recognition and
appreciation for centuries to come. Although Gardner’s
book abounds with misinformation, erroneous assumptions, and fantastic
speculations, it may be fortuitous that it appeared early in the Urantia
movement.
True enough, Gardner
is out to undermine the credibility of The UB, because as he sees it,
any humanly-authored work that poses as a celestial revelation from on high
deserves to be shot down. But note how
Dr. Sprunger carefully interweaves his personal
philosophy into the discussion so as to “fault” Gardner
with focusing on the scientific aspects of The UB and “ignoring” the
spiritual qualities thereof in an abject lack of spiritual insight from the
very start. As we shall see later, such
is not the case. Note also that Sprunger foists accusations of “misinformation, erroneous
assumptions, and fantastic speculations” on Gardner’s
book which yet remain to be substantiated.
Gardner
is best known as the author of columns in the Scientific American and
the Skeptical Inquirer. He is a professional debunker of psychic and
esoteric phenomena. Gardner
is an indefatigable researcher reporting facts, events, and rumors which make The
Urantia Book appear in the worst possible light. Urantia: The Great Cult
Mystery is a hodgepodge of information and speculation about Ellen White’s
revelations, Seventh-Day Adventism beliefs, Oahspe
revelations, numerology, scientific errors in The Urantia Book, deviant
activities, and controversy in the Urantia movement. The book is focused on the
scientific-cultural carrier-vehicle aspects of The Urantia Book and
largely ignores its spiritual truths. He believes Wilfred Kellogg channeled The
Urantia Book and Dr. William S. Sadler edited and revised it. Since the supermortal authors of the Urantia Papers tell us they have
used the ideas of thousands of human beings in the production of the book and
research is confirming this fact, it would not be surprising if Dr. Sadler’s
ideas were among this distinguished group. But, for many reasons, I am
confident that Dr. Sadler did not write or revise the book.
As it has already been pointed out, Doctor Sprunger is apparently feigning annoyance with Gardner’s
approach not to include the spiritual aspects of The UB in his evaluation.
The fact that Gardner chose
instead to focus his attention on the human influences thereof is grounds for
automatic disqualification as a reliable source of research. But as Sprunger
himself aptly points out, Gardner’s
background is that of a “professional debunker of psychic and esoteric
phenomena,” which would tend to leave most of us expecting the approach Gardner
takes in his book. As Gardner
sees it, the crux of the issue is source, not content. Reveal any deception in the identity of the
true source, and the veracity of the content therein becomes moot. That the negative outcome of Gardner’s
methodology annoys Sprunger is not surprising, in
light of all the he has apparently invested in The UB. Sprunger’s
discontent is not due to Gardner’s
approach, but to Gardner’s
conclusions as a result of his approach.
As for the “many reasons” that Sprunger is
“confident that Dr. Sadler did not write or revise the book,” we have here yet
another unsubstantiated claim, on which we probably should not expect
elaboration.
Gardner attempts to denigrate the spiritual quality
of The Urantia Book not by
dealing directly with this issue but by using many of the classic logical
fallacies:
1. The Genetic Fallacy.
Gardner asserts that The Urantia Book is
the product of channeling; therefore, he implies, its message is inferior, or,
at least the product of human authorship. The Urantia Book is
not the product of channeling activity. In 1958 I arranged a meeting of a group
of ministers who were making a critical study of The Urantia Book and
Dr. William S. Sadler to discuss the origin of the Urantia Papers. When we
arrived, he had prepared a paper for us listing every imaginable form of
subconscious mind or psychic activity, including channeling. At the bottom of
the outline he had a note saying, “The technique of the reception of The Urantia Book in English in no way parallels or impinges
upon any of the above phenomena of the marginal consciousness.” He went on to
tell us that as nearly as he could determine, the appearance of the Urantia
Papers was associated with some form of superconscious mind activity.
Dr. Sprunger is mistaken when he proclaims, “The Urantia Book is not the
product of channeling activity.” In its
theological context, the term channeling refers to “the transmission of
messages from entities on a higher plane of existence . . . .”[3] Channeling is also defined
as “the communication of information to or through a physically embodied human
being from a source . . . on some other level or dimension of reality other
than the physical as we know it.”[4] While channeling is a term commonly attributed to
the modern New Age movement, it is not a new phenomenon, but is instead a new
name for an ancient practice that has taken many forms throughout history. The Oracles of the Dead in ancient Greece would call upon the deceased to help improve
the lives of their loved ones. In the
late 1800s, a resurgence of interest in contacting the afterlife surfaced and
produced the Spiritualist movement.
These were groups of people that believed that life continued after
death and that the spirits of the departed could be contacted and spoken with. With the twentieth century came the exposure
of the fraudulent claims posed by many spiritualists, and its novel attraction
soon lost its luster. Meanwhile, the
Archangel Gabriel is said to have told Muhammed to
write the Koran, while Joseph Smith received the golden tablets that were later
transcribed into The Book of Mormon
through the angel Moroni. In
its modern vernacular, channeling within the New Age movement is the old
procedure practiced with a new twist.
Instead of contacting departed loved ones, the entities contacted are
usually spirit guides, ascended masters, aliens, or angels.
It is because the
phenomenon of channeling is more commonly thought to be associated with the New
Age movement that Urantians such as Sprunger would rather distance themselves from the
term. They much prefer instead the
intrigue garnered with calling the method of transmission an “unknowable
mystery.” However, The UB
itself clearly maintains that the information supposedly authored by the
celestial visitors was being passed through the mind of a human conduit. Below is the progression of information
revealed therein regarding said phenomenon:
“In the contacts made with the mortal
beings of the material worlds, such as with the subject through whom these
communications were transmitted . . .” (77:8.8).
“The Adjuster of the human being
through whom this communication is being made . . .” (110:5.7).
“[T]he human subject used in this
contactual communication . . .” (113:2.6).
“On many worlds the better adapted
secondary midway creatures are able to attain varying degrees of contact with
the Thought Adjusters of certain favorably constituted mortals through the
skillful penetration of the minds of the latters’
indwelling. (And it was by just such a fortuitous combination of cosmic
adjustments that these revelations were materialized in the English language on
Urantia.)” (114:7.6; emphasis added)
Though the term “channeling” is not used in any of the above
passages, they all clearly describe the process. Moreover, it was Dr. Sadler himself who was
the first to identify the method by which the communications were coming
through, referring to the phenomenon as that of automatic writing and/or
automatic speaking in his book The Mind at Mischief. In the very last paragraph of Chapter 18 of
his book, and despite his resolute conclusion in the previous paragraph that
all cases of automatic writing can be attributed to purely psychological
causes, Sadler leaves himself a loophole for allowing just one exception
outside the realm of natural phenomena: “The reader is referred to the Appendix
for brief notice of a very unusual case of supposedly automatic writing
associated with other psychic phenomena which came under my observation many
years ago.” Sadler elaborates in the book’s Appendix:
“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. . . . 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 . . . . These communications . . . arise in alleged spiritual beings
who purport to have been assigned to this planet for duties of various sorts.”[6]
Activities such as automatic writing and automatic speaking
are considered to be primary forms of channeling, and are held by most
psychologists and skeptics alike to be phenomena of the subconscious, or what
Dr. Sadler referred to as the “marginal consciousness.” In fact, Dr. Sprunger
later contradicts himself when he relies on Sadler’s statement that “the
appearance of the Urantia Papers was associated with some form of
superconscious mind activity.” The fact
that The UB may have come through in
a “superconscious” way does not negate the fact that
a human host was required through which the information could be passed. The “superconscious”
mind is referred to in The UB as that
level of the human consciousness that is “the domain of the indwelling Thought
Adjuster” (91:2.6). Doctor Sadler only
managed to qualify the supposed method of revelation as a “superconscious”
phenomenon (in decidedly Jungian terminology), as opposed to a “phenomenon of the
marginal consciousness.” It was only a
matter of transferring the communicated messages from the spirits of departed
human beings (which, by the way, Sadler ardently opposed) to “alleged extra‑planetary
personalities” in order to “legitimize” the method of communication. This transfer from “subconscious” to
“superconscious” activity, whether valid or not, does not rid Sadler (or
Sprunger) of the problem that the material was still being channeled through a
human mind.
Even
if the book were a product of channeling, or any other technique or source of
authorship, the only way to ascertain its quality is by evaluating its content
or teachings. The real issue of the spiritual quality is not seriously
considered by Gardner.
Here we see Dr. Sprunger doing what so many who are not
quite resolute in their position do: waver and capitulate. We need not concern ourselves with the mode
of communication, but only the contents of the message itself. Such a retreat only serves to reveal the root
of Sprunger’s contention—that Gardner
does not give The UB the proper
treatment due a “true” revelation. But
what Sprunger does not consider is that not everybody
is going to be drawn to The UB at
face value as he apparently has been.
Not everybody can so easily dismiss the questionable source,
particularly when the subject matter weighs in heavily on untenable spiritual
concepts. What Sprunger’s
disparagement amounts to is nothing more than a battle of competing world views—his
and Gardner’s. Gardner
cannot accept the theology of The UB
because of his commitment to rationalism, whereas Sprunger
cannot accept Gardner’s rejection
thereof because he has accepted the spiritual teachings of The UB as gospel truth.
The issue of The UB’s spiritual
authenticity is beyond the scope of this review. Be that as it may, Sprunger’s
apparent dissatisfaction with Gardner’s
lack of spiritual acumen will be discussed forthwith in greater detail.
2. The Post Hoc Ergo Hoc Fallacy (After this, therefore, because of this). Gardner points to the
contradictions in Sister Ellen White’s pronouncements, documents her
plagiarisms, and recites disputes among Seventh-day Adventists. Early in my
correspondence with Gardner
I observed that he had an emotional fixation of Seventh-day Adventism. I was therefore
not surprised to read on p. 181, “I have always been interested in the history
of Seventh-day Adventism ever since as a young boy, for a period of about a
year, I considered myself an Adventist.” After these extensive references to
Seventh-day Adventism, Gardner implies that since Dr. Sadler as a young man was
active in Seventh-day Adventism ministry, The Urantia Book is
in many ways an outgrowth of the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventism.
Dr. Sprunger here is himself a
victim of his own post hoc ergo hoc fallacy. It is from Sprunger’s
own perception of Gardner’s
“emotional fixation” on Seventh-Day Adventism that Sprunger manufactures Gardner’s
connection between Dr. Sadler’s former ministry in SDA and The UB. But nowhere in Gardner’s
book does he claim that The UB is “an outgrowth of the beliefs of
Seventh-Day Adventism” as Sprunger asserts.
Gardner is merely pointing
out the similarities between the two as evidence for his thesis that Sadler
heavily influenced (if not contributed to) the religious content of The UB. To the contrary, Gardner
readily acknowledges that The UB is too far removed from Adventist
doctrine to be considered an “offshoot” of SDA, which is why Gardner
finds it so peculiar to find as many parallels thereto. In Gardner’s exact words: “The UB’s doctrines
are a strange blend of Seventh-day Adventist opinions and Adventist heresies,
just what one would expect from the subconscious mind of a man who had
abandoned his earlier Adventist beliefs” (p. 226). Moreover, Gardner
does not rely solely on his familiarity with SDA to draw his conclusions. Gardner
used several independent sources to build his case of Adventist influence on
the movement. Iola Martin is a Seventh
Day Adventist who revealed documentary evidence pointing to the interrelationship
between Sadler, the Kelloggs, and Ellen White. Richard Schwarz is an Adventist historian who
shared his personal opinion of Sadler, whom he interviewed prior to writing a
biography of Dr. John Kellogg. Ronald
Numbers’ biography of Mrs. White provided further insight regarding her
relationship with Kellogg and Sadler.
But in spite of Gardner’s
comprehensive approach, Dr. Sprunger instead intends to pin Gardner
down as one who jumps to conclusions.
This
is a vast distortion of fact and truth. The Urantia Book contains
many theological and philosophical positions which are harmonious with insights
in many of the world religions. Although it most closely parallels the insights
of progressive mainline Christian theology, historical analysis may show that
the Mormon movement, Seventh-day Adventism, and other contemporary religious
movements were instrumental in preparing for the advent of the Fifth Epochal
Revelation. The Urantia Book at the same time differs, particularly in
its spiritual cosmology, from all traditional religious positions. Gardner again fails to discuss the spiritual truths
presented by The Urantia Book with which he may disagree.
Note that Dr. Sprunger here does not deny the many facets of
SDA that exist in The UB. He merely
states that The UB contains many other theological doctrines as
well. As it has already been inferred
above, Gardner did not single out
SDA as the only source of UB theology.
Gardner acknowledges the
liberal Christian theology as well as the syncretistic theme woven throughout The UB.
And as to the “uniqueness” of The UB’s “spiritual
cosmology,” Gardner makes the case that it was from the imaginations of Ellen
G. White, the prophetess of early SDA, that The
UB gets its billions of inhabited planets that circle around “God’s
Throne,” otherwise known as the Isle of Paradise (pp. 226-229). It is Dr. Sprunger who is distorting the
facts, not Gardner. What’s more, Sprunger attempts to play spin
doctor by suggesting that history will show that SDA, among other contemporary
religious movements, was “instrumental” in “preparing” for the arrival of The
UB. The question is, preparing for
whom? Surely Dr. Sprunger does not
expect to see mass droves of Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists converting to the
Urantian way!
As far as concerns Gardner
“failing” to discuss the spiritual “truths” presented by The UB with
which he may disagree, Sprunger is waving a red herring. Gardner
gives his thumbnail assessment of the spiritual aspects of The UB in his first chapter.
In fact, Gardner makes
several assessments of the spiritual content of The UB such as the following:
“The doctrines of the UB are a weird mix of recorded teachings
of Jesus with views that are offensive to conservative Christians. Because there was no Fall of Man, there was
no need for an atonement in the form of a blood sacrifice.” (pp. 24-25)
“The UB’s approach to the so-called
miracles of Jesus is more closely related to science fiction than to Christian
theology.” (p. 29)
However, the focus of Gardner’s
book is not about his personal opinion of the theological paradigms presented
in The UB, but rather the source thereof and the movement that it has
spawned since its publication. On the
other hand, for Dr. Sprunger’s sake and for all others who are curious enough
to know more about his personal religious beliefs, Gardner does indeed make a
statement of faith in his book, referring to his fideistic
world view and referring (on page 31) to his “confessional” book The Whys of
a Philosophical Scrivener. It is
from this book that one can readily deduce what Gardner
thinks of self-proclaimed spiritual revelations such as The UB. On a related note, Gardner
points out that while on one page The UB
subscribes to fideism (1:2.4), it appears to deny it on another (58:2.3). Again, it is apparently not so much that Gardner
hesitates to discuss the spiritual acumen of The UB that irks Sprunger, but that Gardner
has the “wrong” opinions thereof.
3.
The Faulty Generalization Fallacy. Gardner cites the absurd dietary beliefs and
practices of Dr. John Kellogg, Vern Grimsley’s
deceptive pronouncements, the strange visions of Joe Pope, and the
controversial beliefs of the channeling movement, and implies that these
reflect the content of The Urantia
Book teachings. He cleverly avoids
comparing any of these activities with Urantia Book teachings—for
there are none!
It is Dr. Sprunger who is engaging in faulty fallacious
fantasy. It is precisely because
of Vern Grimsley’s and Joe Pope’s outlandish
interpretations of The UB teachings that Gardner
includes their legacies into his assessment of the Urantia movement. Both of these personalities had posed as
prophets whose messages were deemed at least by some to be compatible with The UB’s teachings. As Gardner explains in Chapter 17, Grimsley and his Family of God organization at first
enjoyed recognition by the Urantia Foundation and by Emma Christensen (one of
the original Contact Commission members) in the 1980s as a strong proponent for
“preaching the UB’s
theme of the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man” (p. 361). In fact, Christy was so taken by Vern’s
dedication that she considered Vern a member of the reserve corps of
destiny. When Grimsley
started hearing his Thought Adjuster warning him against an impending third
world war, some Urantians were so overcome by his
predictions that they thought he was the new John the Baptist predicted by The UB (170:5.19) and donated millions
of dollars to his cause. Joe Pope, upon
hearing his cranial commands in 1990, proclaimed himself to be this John the
Baptist, and prophesied a pending evacuation of planet Urantia, replete with
the annihilation of the wicked and the seraphic transport of sincere believers
to a planet specially constructed by the gods called Graceland (not too far
removed linguistically from Mansonia, I might
add!). Sprunger
cannot deny that these folks had been, for better or worse, outspoken
proponents of the “Fifth Epochal Revelation” in their own right—otherwise, how
else would these individuals have gained such a strong following from within
the Urantian camp? It is only until Gardner
begins discussing the highly variegated messages allegedly being channeled by
Urantian devotees that their compatibility with The UB’s
teachings and with each other comes into question.
The “absurd dietary beliefs and practices of Dr. John
Kellogg” are detailed in Chapter 3 of Gardner’s book. However, while the chapter makes for amusing
reading, nowhere in Gardner’s book does he imply that these beliefs “reflect the
content of The Urantia Book
teachings,” which is precisely why he “cleverly” avoids comparing the two—for
Gardner would agree with Sprunger that there are no similarities to
compare! On the other hand, Kellogg’s
religious beliefs are quite germane to the discussion of the content of The UB’s teachings, as Gardner
aptly points out. Chapter 3 of Gardner’s
book also hints that Dr. John Kellogg was expelled from the SDA church in 1907
for heretical views that “worked their way into the UB” (p. 51). In the previous
chapter, Gardner notes that Dr.
Kellogg “greatly broadened his faith to accept the theory of evolution, the
antiquity of the earth, and the still older age of the universe . . .” (p.
48). And in Chapter 5, entitled “The
Living Temple,” which is also the title of a book that Kellogg wrote regarding
his religious views, Gardner
provides the salient connection:
“Of special interest to Urantians are pages 460-74 of The Living Temple on which Kellogg defends the Adventist (and
Urantian) doctrines of soul sleep and the reconstitution of one’s body. . . .
When we die, we are totally unconscious because we have no functioning
brain. On resurrection day God gives to
our pattern a new and glorified body. It
is this pattern that constitutes our ‘soul.’
Because God dwells within us, it is easy for him to recall the
pattern. After our resurrection we are
not ‘a new thing’ because our identity has been retained in God’s infinite
mind. We will experience no passage of
time between death and resurrection, while our ‘soul’ sleeps, because we have
no brain to measure a time lapse. . . . All this is, of course, sound Adventist
and Urantian doctrine. I am convinced
that neither Wilfred Kellogg nor Dr. Sadler, or their respective wives, ever
abandoned it. I believe that is how it
found its way into The Urantia Book.”
(pp. 91-92)
Gardner goes on
to reveal the heretical views of Dr. Kellogg mentioned earlier:
“Mrs. White and other church leaders
were more understandably distressed by rumors that Dr. Kellogg was beginning to
have doubts about many basic Adventist doctrines. The rumors were true. Here is how Richard Schwarz, in his biography
of Kellogg, summarizes the doctor’s heresies:
‘By the 1920’s considerable evidence
had accumulated that Dr. Kellogg had seriously modified some of the religious
beliefs in which his parents had reared him. . . . He . . . began with
increasing frequency to cite evolutionary theories in support of his system of
biologic living. Old Adventist
associates reported that the doctor no longer professed belief in certain parts
of the Bible, such as the stories of Jonah and Job; denied the virgin birth and
divinity of Jesus and the need for an atonement; constantly joked about the
personal appearance of God; and expressed the view that it was possible for
human beings to work out their own salvation through a program of eugenics and
biologic living.’
“It is my belief that both Wilfred
Kellogg and Dr. Sadler shared Dr. Kellogg’s heresies, and that many of these
views entered the UB. The book denies such doctrines as the Virgin
Birth of Jesus, and his blood atonement for the sins of mankind. It denies the historicity of many Old
Testament myths and many New Testament miracle tales. . . . Most significant of
all, the UB accepts evolution as
God’s method of creation.” (p. 93)
Gardner’s
description of Dr. Kellogg’s influence on Sadler helps explain why The UB contains so much Adventist
material while at the same time holding to so many orthodox heresies. Dr. Sprunger attempts to whitewash the entire
issue by falsely claiming that it is Gardner who is laying false charges
against The UB!
4.
The Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy. Gardner analyzes and uses the scientific errors in The Urantia Book to depreciate its value even though the
authors clearly state that the science and cosmology of the book are not
inspired and will soon need to be updated. He also notes that human sources
were used, which he labels as plagiarism, and thereby implies that the
spiritual quality of the book is equally erroneous and human.
There are several reasons Gardner
points out why the cosmology disclaimer is an obvious smokescreen to those who
are not swayed by The UB. First
of all, the disclaimer does not explain why the “celestial” authors would
invest their time and effort in presenting scientific information that they
already knew would soon become outdated.
It is more likely, Gardner
reasons, that the “authors” were confronted with some of the inaccurate
information during one or more of the Forum readings, and came up with the
disclaimer in an attempt to dissuade the test audience from exposing their true
human identity. Second, the disclaimer
does not “explain away” the scientific evidence that was not just eventually deemed
outdated, but was outright erroneous to begin with. The surface temperature of the sun, the
rotation rate of the Moon and Mercury, and the number of chromosomes in the
human genome are all examples of scientific facts that were already known by
human scientists in 1955, but were incorrectly reported by the “celestial”
authors. Third, the cosmology of The
UB is the very foundation on which the celestial hierarchy is based. If the cosmology of The UB is not
inspired as the “celestial” authors assert (101:4), then we have no sound basis
upon which to accept the celestial hierarchy as presented therein (which leads
us to question the very existence of the “celestial” authors themselves!).
As
we mentioned earlier, the authors of The
Urantia Book clearly state
that they have used human sources and why they are using them. The use of these
human sources is often handled in such a way as to arrive at a position
differing from that of the human author. To accuse the superhuman authors of
plagiarism is a bit far fetched, as they are not concealing the use of human
sources and they deliberately avoided reference to specific human
personalities—they do not want any St. Peter or St. Paul connected with the
Fifth Epochal Revelation. This, in my judgment, is certainly a wise decision.
There is very little in The
Urantia Book which would
support Urantia Book fundamentalism! Nonetheless, revelation
always gives rise to fundamentalists.
Gardner’s claim
of plagiarism on the part of the “celestial” authors is a valid accusation;
whether Dr. Sprunger acknowledges its veracity is up to him. That the “celestial” authors readily admit
they used human sources “of the highest caliber” does not get them off the hook
if they did not provide appropriate references to their sources, as Gardner
points out. Likewise, claiming celestial
authorship does not grant the author license to pilfer from human sources
without regards to their specific identity.
Plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless of who does it or whatever the
perpetrator thereof offers as an excuse.
Furthermore, Sprunger abuses a commonly known response, provided by Dr.
Sadler himself, as to why the alleged “celestial” authors gave the mandate not
to reveal the identity of the so-called sleeping subject: “They do not want any
St. Peter or St. Paul connected with
the Fifth Epochal Revelation.” To
attribute this response to the reason why the authors deliberately avoided
referencing their literary sources is not only inapplicable, it is downright
deceptive. And Sprunger should know
better than to skirt the issue by pointing out that the “celestial” use of
human sources often arrived at a position other than that of the original
author’s intent. Like that’s never been
done before!
5.
The Ad Hominem
Fallacy. Since Gardner is apparently not interested in grappling
with the spiritual content of Urantia
Book teachings, he attacks the activities of people he assumes are
associated with its origin or who are Urantia Book readers:
Seventh-day Adventists, the atypical people in the Urantia movement, as well as
Dr. Sadler. He quotes Harry Loose (So far as I know, no one in the Urantia
movement has ever heard of him except Harold Sherman) as saying, “The truth is
that Sadler is mentally unsound. A paranoiac with religeo-power
complex—feverishly grasping for greater jurisdiction of the mentalities of the
many” (p. 149) “Sherman was convinced,” Gardner writes, “that after Lena died
Sadler became paranoid, his mind ‘perverse and deranged.’ Both he and his son
Bill, Sherman wrote, ‘will lie and frame anybody and [do] anything to
accomplish their purposes’” (p. 150) Gardner’s personal opinion of Sadler is a
little more reserved, “Although I do not question Sadler’s honesty and
sincerity, I am convinced that he fell victim in his declining years to
delusions of self-importance and grandeur of the sort that occasionally descend
on the elderly.” (p. 403)
I will call this one the Sprunger ad nauseum
strategy—more “attacks” on Gardner’s
motivation for describing certain cult personalities within the Urantia
movement in order to “avoid” acknowledging the spiritual veracity of The UB. I will address Gardner’s
treatment of Sadler shortly, but first, what are we to make of this
“mysterious” character Harry Loose?
Shall we take it on Dr. Sprunger’s word that Harold Sherman is the only
person in the Urantia movement to have ever heard of Loose? Gardner
wields copious evidence that suggests otherwise. We have, now available to the public as part
of the Sherman collection held in the Torreyson
Library at the University of Central Arkansas (and as corroborated in Saskia Praamsma and Matthew
Block’s book The Sherman Diaries, Volume
One), the many letters that Harold Sherman and Harry Loose exchanged in
1941 and 1942. We also have in the same
collection a copy of a letter from Sir Hubert Wilkins to Harry Loose, dated 18 April 1942, in which Wilkins
gushes to Loose about the Urantia Papers he had recently read. Gardner’s
book also mentions that “Letters to Sherman
from other Urantians speak of Loose becoming
depressed over his daughter’s romance with a man he thought unsuitable for her”
(p. 136). And Sadler himself certainly
knew of the elusive Harry Loose, as evidenced by a 15 February 1917 letter written by Sadler to the
president of the International Lyceum Bureau in Chicago,
endorsing Harry Loose as a competent public speaker (p. 137). The exchanged letters of 1941-42 corroborate Sherman’s
account in his 1976 book How to Know What
to Believe that it was Loose who had introduced Sherman
to the Urantia Papers.
Anyone
who knew Dr. Sadler will recognize that these statements are ridiculous. Dr.
Sadler was an exceptionally well balanced, rational individual. He did not try
to control people and usually did not express his opinion about an issue unless
asked. He deliberately removed himself from leadership responsibilities in the
Urantia Foundation and the Urantia Brotherhood and did not try to influence
their decisions. He did everything he could to prevent his name from being
associated with The Urantia Book.
I was amazed at his ability to
remove himself from leadership influence and allow younger people to assume
responsibilities without his interference.
Who does Dr. Sprunger refer to when he states “Anyone who
knew Dr. Sadler”? No doubt there were
very few people alive that knew Sadler at the time Sprunger
wrote this plea, none of which, we are expected to believe, would give an
unbiased report if broached on the subject.
Then again, Sherman reports
that Sadler was feared by many forum members and that he had heard Forum
members referring to Sadler as “the Little Pope” (p. 133). Nevertheless, we are asked once again to take
it on Sprunger’s word that Sadler was an upstanding individual incapable of ill
or misled intentions. But more to the
point, Sprunger is playing bait and hook by transferring blame on Gardner
for statements made by Loose and Sherman! The quotes of Loose and Sherman
pertain to the Sherman rebellion
(see below), which happened in 1942, and which Sprunger had no involvement
in. Regarding Sadler’s “amazing ability”
to remove himself from positions of leadership, Sadler was pushing 75 years of
age by the time the Urantia Brotherhood had been formed in 1950. It would not seem so extraordinary, then, to
see Sadler delegate authority to fresh blood for the purpose of carrying the
movement into perpetuity. It was not so
much a humble gesture on Sadler’s part as it was a matter of practicality (and
perhaps even reluctant practicality, at that).
He
[Sadler] was also a very competent leader and I assume he could be autocratic
with anyone who wanted to alter the content of The Urantia Book. Christy
(Emma Christensen, a member of the contact commission who received the Urantia
Papers) told me that Harold Sherman wanted to enter material on extra sensory
perception in the book and was categorically refused.
Dr. Sprunger’s comments above are
both self-refuting and deceptive.
Neither Sherman nor anybody else outside the Contact Commission was
capable of altering any of the Urantia Papers, nor did Sherman
ever attempt to do so. And as Chapter 8
of Gardner’s book clearly portrays, it was Sadler whom Sherman
suspected was altering and enlarging what he, Sherman, then believed to be a
genuine revelation from on high. As Sprunger rightly implies, Sherman
had become curious as to why psychic phenomena such as ESP had not been
discussed in the Urantia Papers, as was Sherman’s
belief. But this is as close as Sprunger’s account comes to documented reality. In his book How to Know What to Believe and as his 9 November 1942 letter to Harry Loose elaborates, Sherman
had tried to persuade Sadler to petition the celestials about psychic research
and communication with the dead. It was
suggested at this time to Sherman
by Christy that he should write up his own chapter on ESP for consideration by
the celestials. Sherman
became so perplexed by Christy’s casual suggestion that he became convinced
that material written by Sadler and others had been inserted into the Urantia
Papers manuscript (see p. 132). Sadler’s
refusal to honor Sherman’s request
set off the skirmish, pitting one’s egomania against that of the other. Sherman
had formed a consortium of Forum readers who challenged Sadler’s methods. Sadler, feeling threatened by Sherman’s
assertiveness, reacted in a way typical of a control freak. Sadler had turned the tables on Sherman,
accusing him of starting a rebellion against the new revelation, acting under
the influence of the wicked Caligastia.
Using classic psychological manipulation, Sadler’s charismatic influence
on the Forum members convinced all those who had signed the petition, one by
one, to remove their names from the petition, or face certain perdition. So Sadler had become “autocratic” with Sherman
not because Sherman wanted to alter the content of The UB, but
that Sherman had questioned
Sadler’s own loyalty to the inviolate revelation.
Urantia:
The Great Cult Mystery is
the first extensively researched public record of events surrounding the origin
of The Urantia Book written by a skilled debunker who does
everything possible to undermine credibility in its teachings. Although Martin
Gardner’s book contains many things which I think are erroneous and has
evaluations with which I disagree, I think it is important in an open society
to have such criticism available, and it helps prevent a cult mentality in the
Urantia movement. Even the impartial reviewer of the book in the Library Journal recognizes its “patronizing tone” and “gross
editorializing” and concludes the review by saying, “...it would be difficult
to recommend this book to any library.” The high spiritual quality of the Fifth
Epochal Revelation will survive such attacks much as the spiritual truths of
the Fourth Epochal Revelation survived the persecutions of the early Christian
community.
Doctor Sprunger
has his library resources, and I have mine.
Another review states that Gardner’s case,
although “certainly remarkably compelling,” has as one of its flaws “the sheer
weight of facts unearthed by [Gardner’s] research” that “sometimes overpowers the thread of his argument.”[7] As far as the “Fourth
Epochal Revelation” surviving the “persecutions” of the early Christian
community is concerned, Sprunger is engaging in a
logical fallacy not previously inculcated to Gardner’s book,
known as the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Gardner
on Sprunger
In closing, it should be abundantly clear to the reader by
now why I have taken this time to mull over Doctor Meredith Sprunger’s
review of Martin Gardner’s book. It
appears, in light of all the logical fallacies Sprunger
utilizes, that his “objective” is somewhat less than “objective.” But why would a distinguished man of the
cloth and esteemed scholar such as Dr. Sprunger lower
himself to such drudgery?
The motivation behind Sprunger’s
tacit review might have something to do with how he is portrayed in Gardner’s
book. In one part of the book, Gardner
is discussing plagiarisms in The UB
and how obsessed devotees of Ellen White are not the least bit concerned about
her plagiaristic tendencies:
“Adventists, of course, now freely admit
that Ellen White also made use of human sources, guided by angels and the Holy
Spirit to select just the right passages to copy. I have done my best to persuade Sprunger to look into Adventist literature, but so far he
has not been interested. In view of the
many Adventist beliefs in the UB and
the fact that the four main members of the Contact Commission were former
Adventists, Sprunger’s refusal to read Ellen White’s
books strikes me as dangerously close to the sin of willful ignorance.” (p.
355)
Gardner’s book
also describes Sprunger’s rather unsuccessful
attempts at convincing mainline (i.e., “liberal”) Christianity to accept the
teachings of The UB, and at
convincing other Urantians to form a formal Urantian
religious institution, replete with public overtures. In the end, then, Sprunger’s
passive/aggressive approach and his “sincere” call to reason appears to be
nothing more than an agenda of tit-for-tat.
Spin Doctor
The publishing of Gardner’s
book Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery has
led to the public’s awareness, for the first time, of the humans that were
behind the forging of the “Fifth Epochal Revelation” from conception to
inception. The mystical attractiveness
that at one time could hold sway to the curious has now become the disappointing
realization of yet another religious hoax.
The “high spiritual quality” of The UB has been brought back down
to terra firma where it belongs, doomed to wallow in the muck and mire along
with all the other opinions of men that dare challenge the true Word of
God. No amount of spin doctoring by Dr. Sprunger or any other party engaged in damage control can
change this outcome. The mighty blue
zeppelin is moored, its buoyancy deflated, and the tethers of reality shall not
let loose their prey. Dr. Sprunger’s review of Gardner’s
book stands as a testimonial for the obsessive devotion to the Urantia movement
by Urantians, be they “liberal” or “fundamentalist,”
and the depths of desperation to which said devotion can go when attempting to
detract from the overwhelming evidence in support of the human origins behind a
supposed divine revelation.
ENDNOTES