Some Selected Rough-Cut posts from Phil Geiger

Some Selected Rough-Cut posts from Phil Geiger
(newest to oldest)

Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 23:39:39 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com To: <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger) Subject: Re: Geiger Counter #14 Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org Sender: owner-urantial@ubook.org

Lee A. writes:

>>Phil writes: >>Refer back to the statements of Sadler, et al, that there were absolutely >>NO original human contributions to the received form of the text. That's as >>good as the evidence will likely get in this matter. >> >>Lee here: >>Phil, the difficulty with what you present is that it's not "evidence." The >>quotes you cite are marvelous. However, they do not serve to show the >>invalidity of the copyright.

Assuming the statments from the Contact Commisioners and early UF trustees are accurate, taken together, they represent a unanimous and adamant denial of human authorship, both within in the general and specialized legal definitions of the term.

>>Phil then quotes: >>"I can categorically assure you that no humans decided the content of the >>Urantia Book. The Book is as the revelators gave it to us." >> -Emma Christensen (Contact Commissioner, hereafter "CC") >> >>Lee here: >>Obviously, the final decisions to what would be in the book are those of the >>revelators. I believe we have common ground on that. However, the logical >>leap you are attempting to make is that this denies human contributions to >>the structure and content.

I don't need to deny any such thing. Humans could have made multitudinous contributions to the structure and content of the subject matter of the UP, and still not qualify for copyright if they had nothing to do with the final writing, selection, or arrangement of the resulting text (unless, of course, you want to resurrect the much discredited 'work-for-hire' theory).

>>Let's apply the dynamic of the creation of The Urantia Papers to a business >>setting. If the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) comes into your department >>and presents an issue or area of discussion, as an employee you will give >>your boss the best insights and feedback possible. When the boss then makes >>a decision, it is SHE who decides. Emma's statement does not preclude that >>questions from the Forum members were received with answers included in >>subsequent papers.

Doesn't matter.

>> This adds that component of human creativity that rises >>above the admittedly low threshold level needed, more than the compiling of >>facts such as a phone book. Emma's statement and the basis for the >>copyright are not mutually exclusive.

Sorry. Creativity must be evidenced in the final expressed form of either the writing, compiling, selection or arrangement of the text, not on the brainstorming that might or might not have gone into it, minimal or not.

>>Phil quotes again: >>"The Urantia Book is based entirely upon the statements of the authors >>of the individual papers, all of whom are self-identified or identified by >>other authors. No human being had any part in authorship itself." >> -Jim Mills (Foundation Trustee, hereafter FT) >> >>I don't believe the question is whether humans "authored" the book. That >>appears to be what you are attempting to link the copyright issue to. All >>parties agree on the superhuman authorship of the book. The issue is >>whether there was a human contribution of creativity that crossed the low >>threshold necessary, more than compiling a list of facts.

The issue is whether that alleged creativity was a part of the input or the output phase. I know you'll be able to relate to the following statement, Lee, since you've argued it's reciprocal many times before in other contexts:

*Copyright is a triumph of form over substance*

If there were nothing but minor editing changes made in the received text (the form) as Dr. Sadler and the others maintain, then there is no basis for copyright. They didn't select or arrange (compile) the individuals Papers. And they certainly didn't write them, or 'hire' someone to write them. That's the only criteria for copyright.

<snip more creativity-as-input stuff>

>>Phil, I read throught the legal opinions that you included. The Feist case >>as cited certainly seems to justify the copyright. As I understand the >>issue, this is germane. I appreciate your research and presentation of >>these materials.

Happy to be of service.

>>Phil quotes: >>"The authors have placed the sequence of studies in their present >>arrangement for their own good reasons." >> -Jim Mills (FT) >> >>Lee here: >>What does this quote have to do with the issue? That the revelators had >>"their own good reasons" does not preclude the human creative element.

The relevant phrase here is "The *authors* have placed the sequence of studies in their present arrangement" (which Jim and all the other trustees and commissioners I've quoted maintain were the Revelators exclusively),

<snip irrelevant creativity-as-input analogy>

Expressively yours,

Phil Geiger

Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:37:25 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:37:17 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com To: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger) Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-From: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Reply-to: ubtalk@utalk.org X-Mailing-List: <ubtalk@utalk.org> archive/latest/6822 X-Loop: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Sender: ubtalk-request@utalk.org Subject: ubtalk: Re: The UF in SF on 3/20. First impressions

Steve H. writes: <snip>

>The "disorienting shadows" you mention were not created by the copyright, >nor by the Foundation. The revelators readily admit the truth of the matter. >The copyright did not change anything in this regard.

The confusion of which I speak has to do with the complicit claims of human authorship of the Revelation that is the current basis for the UF's copyright on the 5th Epochal Revelation. This is the current legal position of the UF relative to their acceptance of the Schroeder Opinion that humans selected, compiled and arranged the expressed form of the Revelation (in direct contradiction to statements from Sadler, Christensen, Hales, Mudelius, and Mills).

Whom do you believe, Steve, Judge Schroeder who stated:

"*The human selection* and arrangement of the revelations could not have been so mechanical or routine as to require no creativity whatsoever."

Or the Revelators (and former contact commissioners and trustees above, who supported the following statement):

"Accordingly, in making these presentations about God and his universe associates, *we have selected* as the basis of these papers more than one thousand human concepts representing the highest and most advanced planetary knowledge of spiritual values and universe meanings."

Who did the selecting here, Steve. The humans, or the Revelators? Or the compiling or arranging for that matter? These are the questions that determine authorship and copyright.

I know you have invested considerable energy in illustrating the rather obvious point that even epochal revelation is the joint creation of "human concepts" and superhuman input, Steve. (This is due, naturally, to the necessity of speaking to the current state of the art of mortal comprehension). But authorship and copyright, as I've taken some pains to illustrate, is determined by the expressed form of that happy conjunction, not by its subject matter. As far as the whole issue of copyright goes, you either accept the proposition that superhumans authored the text, as authorship is defined by even secular law as constituting the final expressed form of a work, or you don't.

I rather enjoy your ruminations on the interactions between matter and spirit as a philosophical and even theological study, Steve. However, when they veer towards the justification of human authorship and copyright claims for the Revelation, I get a bit uncomfortable. That may not be your intent, but you have a tendency to muddy the waters on this issue, at least in my perception.

Yours in the Authentic, Inviolate, Expression of the Revelation,

Phil Geiger

Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:33:53 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:33:33 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com To: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger) Subject: Re: ubtalk: The UF in SF on 3/20. First impressions Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-From: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Reply-to: ubtalk@utalk.org X-Mailing-List: <ubtalk@utalk.org> archive/latest/6773 X-Loop: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Sender: ubtalk-request@utalk.org

Nancy writes:

>PG: >but in the legal realm, the inescapable result is a weakening of the >>authenticity of the Revelation. > >I know you have stated this before and I just don't *get it.* I do not see >any way in which the UF as holder of the existing copyright and trademarked >symbol can weaken "the authenticity of the Revelation. IMO, the only thing >that can weaken the "authenticity" is if people stop believing it is >*authentic*.

What about the people who haven't made up their minds yet, and rely to some extent on the legal/media record in deciding on whether to commit to reading a 2100 page tome whose authencity is in question?

> Nothing the UF, or me or you or any individual can do will >weaken the FER unless we allow this to happen! In my *faith* - my *belief* >the FER is safe - stet - as given - regardless, because I *believe*.

Belief doesn't preclude preventative action.

<snip> > >PG: >The UF has created a classic Catch-22 situation for themselves. If they >>want to maintain the copyright in order to "protect" the inviolability of >>the text, they have to undermine it's authenticity. Such are the >>disorienting shadows cast by a hair's turning. > >Just can't agree Phil - your "hair's turning" IMO is no better or worse >than a one-time application of Grecian Formula for Men. I just don't see >the "Catch-22" change in the color of the FER.

By a Catch-22, I mean that whatever choice one makes once one has accepted a certain governing logic, the effects are the same, and often the opposite of what one intends. I've traced the denouement of the copyright decision three or fours steps and four decades from it initial launch point, and seen a lot of trouble and dissension result therefrom. Thus includes legal representations that the book was co-authored, selected and arranged by humans; it's religious nature denied; and distorted representations of its teachings made to the press by its "owners". Though the effects to date have been limited to the small, very small group of 1st and 2nd generation readers, can we assume that such a snowball won't grow bigger over time?

In these days of the Internet and Lexis-Nexis, Court Opinions (free public domain documents) are available for download at the press of a button. Such records are used consistently to provide background stories to other media. This all may sound like a tempest in a teapot now, but it behooves us to perceive ourselves as others might see us before we hit critical mass.

Meanwhile, about the Father's business...

(For a more detailed response to my hair turning remark, see my "Hair Turning Apology"...posted earlier today.

Aloha and - what's Hawiian for 'light'?

Phil Geiger

Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 18:09:06 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 18:08:49 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com To: <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger) Subject: Re: ubtalk: The UF in SF on 3/20. First impressions Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-From: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Reply-to: ubtalk@utalk.org X-Mailing-List: <ubtalk@utalk.org> archive/latest/6766 X-Loop: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Sender: ubtalk-request@utalk.org

Matthew, snipping a portion of Deitz's deposiition, writes:

>On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Norm Du Val wrote: > >> MR. BRYLAWSKI: >> Q. If someone had responded that what they were seeking to copyright >> in 1956 was not created by them but came to them by divine revelation what >> would you have done? >> THE WITNESS: >> A. It was not unusual during that period to receive claims to >> copyright for works for which the individuals asserted that this was >> revealed to them in a dream by an alien from outer space or a divine being >> and these claims were routinely rejected.

Matthew R. responds:

>That was 1956. I wonder if that would still be the case today.

I know of nothing in the case law or subsequent statutes that would change the essential requirement for originality.

>In the hypothetical case I cited, the book may be original in the sense >that it >is not merely a replication of some other book, and that it was penned by >my hand.

You have set up 2 distinct criteria. Both are dealt with in the portion of Mr. Deitz's testimony that you snipped:

Q. Would it be fair to analogize that with the 10 commandments in the sense that Moses was not the author of the 10 commandments? A. Exactly. Q. He merely had received them and written them down? A. Yes. Q. So as I understand it the mere writing down of someone else's statements or expressions does not constitute the person writing it down as an author? A. No. The authorship has to emanate from an individual. There has to be something that could be attributable to that individual.

Re: the mere writing down of something, the technical term for such a writer is "scrivener". Scriveners, for instance, write wills and testaments. They are not considered to be authors.

And your first criteria about the book not being a replication and thus original doesn't pass muster either, since "There has to be something that could be attributable to that individual." Something creative, original. In other words, no finders keepers.

>What difference then TO THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE what I claim >concerning supermaterial authors?

None whatsoever, as long as you made some original contribution to the resulting work. You would then be eligible for a compilation copyright, just like the Foundation has on the UP, since you took otherwise uncopyrightable facts and ideas and compiled them in a way that reflected some creativity, or originality, of your own.

>Isn't this essentially what Judge Schroder said?

What she found was that *regardless* of claims as to superhuman authors (such things being a matter of faith and belief, not law), she determined that the Contact Commission and Forum made sufficient *human contributions*, in the form of compilation, selection, and arrangement of the material and its resulting textual form to qualify for human originality, and thus copyright.

As Phil E has pointed out, copyright MEANS originality (either of the created or hired variety). For the UF to maintain their copyright claims, they are by definition claiming human authorship of the text. Winking and nodding about the TRUE authors will play to the choir of the faithful, but in the legal realm, the inescapable result is a weakening of the authenticity of the Revelation.

The UF has created a classic Catch-22 situation for themselves. If they want to maintain the copyright in order to "protect" the inviolability of the text, they have to undermine it's authenticity. Such are the disorienting shadows cast by a hair's turning.

Phil Geiger

Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:04:59 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 20:04:39 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com To: ubtalk@utalk.org From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger) Cc: <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG>, urantial@ubook.org Resent-From: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Reply-to: ubtalk@utalk.org X-Mailing-List: <ubtalk@utalk.org> archive/latest/6509 X-Loop: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Sender: ubtalk-request@utalk.org Subject: ubtalk: Re: The UF in SF on 3/20. First impressions

A number of different people have commented on my post to this thread, and I'll try to address at least some of each of their concerns, while responding specifically to some points Matthew made.

First, I believe that in order to understand the current state of the Urantia movement, we have to understand how we got here. Certain decisions were made that, for all practical intents and purposes short of an epiphany on the part of the Trustees, might now be irreversible. But it is essential to review those decisions and confront their moral, ethical, legal and social ramifications, as their effects are still with us. Only then can we hope to chart ourselves a route back to the high/way of unity we all seek.

I believe that many of our current problems began with the decision to copyright the Revelation. A major concern here is that this choice, made presumably to protect the integrity of the Urantia Papers, has set off a longterm chain reaction that produces just the opposite result. The reason for this is as follows.

Since only humans can be granted copyrights, and the sine qua non of copyright is human originality, the die was cast for the future muddying of the water re: the authenticity of the Revelation (human fingerprints). This slippery slope, though apparently not too steep when first viewed in the early '50s, became steeper in 1983 when the copyright came up for renewal. For technical reasons, the UF claimed that the book was "a work for hire", contributing further to the perception that the Revelation was at least partially written by mortals (more human fingerprints). This point was etched into the legal record when the Foundation claimed that Bill Sadler Jr. wrote parts of the book. Then in June 1997, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a finding that humans selected and arranged the actual text (palm prints and other smudges), a ruling which the UF has failed to contest.

So in spite of the best intentions of the early Trustees to deliver to the world a text uncontaminated by human hands, the legal record as determined by the inexorable logic of copyright and trademark law, tells quite a different story. What's next in this denouement of perceived human contamination? God only knows. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, we are now well down the road of creating the Urantia Book Myth - was it or wasn't it written in whole or part by humans? And we already have at least two cases of individuals (Howard Sherman and Gabriel of Sedona) who have seized upon this alleged human contamination as justification for further attacking the credibility of Revelation. (A practical way to mitigate this damage is for the UF to print a clarification about the authorship issue in its publishing statement; as an insert for existing books; and to publish same on its web site).

On the issue of whether the UF should have originally chosen to be a church or act like one now, I've consistently said that the UF should not be exercising any sort of ecclesiastical authority vis a vis OFFICIAL interpretations of the text. Yet that is exactly what is happening by default. Witness UF's recent UNQUALIFIED and misleading press statements about the Revelators' teachings about cults and about organizing a religion. Agree or disagree with my characterization of those statements, the fact remains that the UF is, by virtue of being the 'author of the Urantia Book for copyright purposes', the entity that the press and the public will look to as the OFFICIAL interpreter of the text. So without having created a 'church', and to the extent that the UP is a religious book and its teaching religious, we end up with the very problem of OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION that NOT setting up a church was suppose to avoid!

A further irony strikes me when I hear a Trustee (G. Dupont) explain that the UF is meeting its goal to foster a religion by publishing a book that the UF considers to be "not a religious book"!

(To say that mere book publishing satisfies both the secular and religious goals of the DOT is, IMO, an exercise in reality avoidance, upon which I'll expand further in my comments to Matthew below)

From a more general perspective, the conflict between the secular and the religious is, of course, hardly unique to the Urantia movement. The Master specifically addresses this problem in his teaching about the need to differentiate between the laws of Caesar from the laws of the spirit; and the Revelators further instruct us as to the need for separating church and state. This natural conflict becomes critical, however, at the point when the methods of one sphere negatively impacts the other. For instance, in theocratic states enforcement of religious morals often negatively impacts the secular aspects of society. And conversely, the over-secularization of society is similarly destructive to the religious sphere for the many reasons the Revelators indicate in the section entitled "Secular Totalitarianism" [2081]. Mixing secular and religious goals is always a dicey proposition (not that it can't be done in theory, but the fact that I can't recall any successful examples of same, tends to underscore the problem!). However, there should be some wisdom we can gather from observing how other groups have tackled this conundrum.

As regards the Urantia movement, its defining document is in many ways the DOT. It lays out a very ambitious and thus highly problematic agenda that has both secular and religious goals. The original Brotherhood was apparently devised as a means to help realize the religious side of the equation, fostered by the UF behind the scenes. However, the Brotherhood was disenfranchised and replaced by an organization, the IUA, which is chained at the neck by the very secular copyright and trademark laws that tend to militate against the kind of free religious expression that a truly independent body would likely generate. Thus the IUA can only rise to the level of a secular agency limited to assisting the UF help realize some of its secular goals. The socialized religious vacuum remains. _______________ Matthew writes:

<snip>

>3. They will continue to evaluate further safe haven use of the >> >marks/name, even to the possibility of their use by a church. They didn't >> >make any promise in this regard, but they (at least Mo to me) acknowledged >> >the issue. >>

> They only own trademarks on use of the terms Urantia and Urantian for > secular purposes (apparently having taken the advice of the Trademark > Office Examiner who refused their first application for a trademark on the > term Urantian for religious purposes. The TO Examiner issued a specific > warning to them that religious terms are not trademarkable. So their > "consideration" of a safe harbor for this issue is pretense, as far as I > can determine, given my reading of the law and my review of the UF's > trademark applications.

>Since churches often engage in the secular as a matter of course (for >example obtaining physical facilities, publishing literature, etc.) I >assume there is some overlap to which they (the UF) can attach their >claim. Otherwise, you are telling us that any church or cult can this >very moment choose to identify themselves with the Banner of Michael, and >the UF would have no recourse?

My understanding of this issue is twofold: general, in the sense that religious symbols are not trademarkable (as was indicated by the TO Examiner to the UF in their first application for the Urantian trademark); and specific, based on what Mo has told us in Boulder about the so-called 'safe harbors'. However, it now sounds from your report that the Trustees have NOT committed to same, but are only *considering* the issue. It would help for the Trustees to commit these safe harbors to writing before we have another legal situation develop, especially one based on mistaken understandings.

<snip>

>The DOT had set the UF a secular task from the very beginning, book >publishing. True there is also that second object, but by your criticism, >there would have been no way for them to accomplish the first in the >context of the second anyway, a loose-loose proposition!

Not so. They still could have published the book, preserved inviolate copies, and by virtue of being the ORIGINAL publisher of the book, assumed the moral high ground as authenticator of the text, even with the book in the public domain. They could have accomplished all that without producing the negative effects that invoking secular copyright and trademark law has subsequently visited upon the religious sphere. Of course we will never know the flipside of those decisions - for instance, whether placing the book in the public domain could have produced even greater negative consequences. The early Trustees made their judgment call on the original copyright issue, and posterity will be the ultimate judge of its ultimate affects. The trademarking of certain symbols by the 2nd generation of UF trustees, who falsely claimed they "coined" the word Urantian, represents a horse of a different color - the kind of ends/means decision that both secular and religious ethicists can easily disavow. Whatever the ultimate disposition of these matters, we have to NOW deal with the ACTUAL negative effects of those decisions upon the reader/believer/ship.

>That the UF chose to make the publishing business its first priority may >be one of >those earthly compromises (the sort Jesus was forced to make all the time >while growing up), that while not perfect, at least gave them a way to >move forward without entering into the business of ecclesiastical authority.

This doesn't necessarily follow. Having discharged their secular publishing duties according to the requirements of the DOT, the UF would have then been free to explore the other half of their mission - fostering a religion, et al. Can you not imagine approaching such a task "without entering into the business of setting up an ecclesiastical authority"? Do we not have the superb example of the 4th Epochal Revelation, as revealed in the 5th, as well as the expanded wisdom of the 5th itself to serve as guidelines for same?

>This was the right choice IMHO. Nowhere does the UB say that the entity >responsible for >shepherding it through its early years must be a church.

And nowhere does it say in the UB that such an entity shouldn't; or that there aren't a myriad of other alternatives. The point is that the religious sphere was never proactively *fostered* by the Trustees (especially since certain secular decisions they made had the effect of shooting themselves in their collective religious foot). Publishing the book may be necessary to fostering a religion (presumably a religion based on the UP), but I hardly think it is sufficient. And we need not necessarily consider a full blown organized religion or a church here to meet this requirement. (According to Meredith Sprunger it took him years of effort just to get people to consider *praying* at the opening of various Urantia meetings).

<snip>

>> To believe, as the Trustees apparently do, that a religion will emerge >> somehow from mere secular activities, such as book publication and >> distribution, is a logical leap that I can find no justification for. > > ... is what I do not understand. As I've said, attempts at religious >organization based on the UB have already been made, belieing your >contention here.

Attempts made by others, not fostered by the UF. Indeed, attempts like those of CUBS to create a unique Urantian identity brought not support from the UF, but a lawsuit because they dared to use the word Urantia in their name.

I take it that the specific 'fostering' language was included in the DOT as a proactive requirement that the Trustees actually *do* something, as in foster -"bring up, raise, or rear as a foster child" (RHUD). (I don't think fostering lawsuits was what the original framers had in mind).

>The UF made no indication that they expected the "emergent religion" to be >within their ranks.

They wouldn't have to. Short of proactively fostering such an emergence, at the very least, they could get out of the way of people who felt so moved.

>Perhaps that is what is confusing you...

I think its confusing a lot of people! ______________________________________

In sum, I believe the conflict we see in the Urantia movement is rooted in the fundamental dichotomy between secular and (socialized) religious pursuits. This necessitates a delicate balance when making choices in one realm that negatively affects the other. The choice to use secular copyright and trademark law with respect to the 5th Epochal Revelation has had a double negative effect - it's polarized believers who feel inhibited from using the Revelation and its symbols in their evangelization efforts; and it has called into question the authenticity of the Revelation itself. Whatever the original rationale for those decisions, their negative effects continue to erode the ground of unity on which a lasting monument to the Revelation must be built.

At the very least, the UF and its supporters should be doing everything in their power to mitigate those effects, especially while they still maintain a reservoir of goodwill. And those that stand outside their immediate fold should be willing to assist them in this task, as long as these worthy goals do not compromise the principles from which they are presumed to derive.

Yours in the Rehabilitation of the Dissemination of the Revelation,

Phil Geiger

Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:33:57 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:33:45 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com To: ubtalk@utalk.org From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger) Cc: <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG>, urantial@ubook.org Resent-From: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Reply-to: ubtalk@utalk.org X-Mailing-List: <ubtalk@utalk.org> archive/latest/6487 X-Loop: ubtalk@utalk.org Resent-Sender: ubtalk-request@utalk.org Subject: ubtalk: Re: The UF in SF on 3/20. First impressions

Yo Brother Matthew:

Thank you very much for your report of the Trustee meeting in San Francisco 3/20/98, and your impressions. I'd like to comment on a few items. You said:

<snip>

>One last note of interest... Mo said that had Kristin not backed out of >the settlement she originally signed, every WEB operator who wanted to >could, this very day, put up a copy of the UB for distribution via the WEB >(so long as they didn't *sell* it), and do it legally, with the permission >of the UF, analogous to freeware software licenses. I'm not sure why >Kristin's backing out nullifies the deal for everyone else at this point, >but that is what he said.

It's probably that the UF still hasn't abandoned Rich's pet "virtual representation" theory, a bug put into his ear by their current attorneys (who are considered experts on the subject, since there are only two such cases even pending and they are carrying the water on one of them, according to a personal conversation I had with Steve Hill, their current point-man attorney).

<snip>

>3. They will continue to evaluate further safe haven use of the >marks/name, even to the possibility of their use by a church. They didn't >make any promise in this regard, but they (at least Mo to me) acknowledged >the issue.

They only own trademarks on use of the terms Urantia and Urantian for secular purposes (apparently having taken the advice of the Trademark Office Examiner who refused their first application for a trademark on the term Urantian for religious purposes. The TO Examiner issued a specific warning to them that religious terms are not trademarkable. So their "consideration" of a safe harbor for this issue is pretense, as far as I can determine, given my reading of the law and my review of the UF's trademark applications.

<snip>

>5. When asked one last and very interesting PUBLIC question (I think it >was Batina Gray)... How did they distinguish between the spread of the >BOOK and the fostering of a RELIGION, they all seemed to agree that the >spread of the book would LEAD TO or RESULT IN the rise of a religion, and >that therefore the UFs focus on the distribution of the UB in as many >languages as possible over the next 30 years amounted to laying the >groundwork for religion, and therefore satisfied the "foster a religion" >part of the DOT. Philosophically speaking, I think that is the most >interesting statement I've ever heard from a trustee.

Interesting is an understatement! I'd characterize this issue as representing the core of the conflict between those who believe the Revelation is a religious book, and the Foundation, who has said at least twice in court that the UP is not a religious book. Consider these quotes (emphasis mine]:

"*All* nonreligious human activities seek to bend the universe to the distorting service of self" [67]

"The great difference between a religious and a nonreligious philosophy of living consists in the nature and level of recognized values and in the object of loyalties." [1114]

This last quote underscores the gulf that exists between those who believe the UP is a religious book and those that don't, such as the Foundation,and presumably its creation - the IUA. Having chosen to walk the secular road of trademark and copyright 'protection', with the inevitable human contamination of the Revelation that resulted therefrom (as the public record now reveals), we have here the classic dichotomy that occurs when even worthy goals are not grounded in "recognized values" - ethical principles, such as the honest representation to the world of the nature of the Revelation ("a work for hire"; co-authored by humans; selected and arranged by humans); its terms, like Urantian (a commercial trademark "made up" by the UF); and its teachings (such as the misrepresentation of the Revelators' teachings on cults and religion that has occured in recent press statements).

To believe, as the Trustees apparently do, that a religion will emerge somehow from mere secular activities, such as book publication and distribution, is a logical leap that I can find no justification for.

Again, my thanks to you Matthew for your report.

Phil Geiger

X-Sender: pgeiger@rmi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:34:26 -0700 To: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: Phil Geiger <pgeiger@rmi.net> Subject: Subject: Re: Revelation Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org Sender: owner-urantial@ubook.org

John Ploetz writes:

>Phil Geiger, > >I know you are no friend of URANTIA Foundation, but you would do well to >leave Dr Sadler and Emma Christensen out of your posts. They are deceased >and cannot defend themselves.

Sorry, John, I don't follow your reasoning here. I'm not 'attacking' them, so defense is not an issue. I am merely citing them for the principle that the Revelation was as the Revelators gave it to us, unchanged by human "originality". I would think you would support such a stance.

>Your out-of-context quoting of them makes it appear that they might agree >with you.

Heaven for fend that their statements about the authenticity of the Revelation might support a concern I have about current trends that misrepresent that authenticity to the world (and if you have evidence that the quotes are out of context with the isssue of authencity, please provide same). I've cited Dr. Sadler & E. Christensen to refute explicit statements that the latter day Trustees have made in court, that the book was co-authored by at least one human; and by their refusal to challenge Judge Schroeder's finding that humans selected and arranged the material of the Urantia Papers, thus leaving on the legal record the impression that the book is not what it says it is.

>I can assure you that, were they here with us today, they would not agree >with your position at all.

I'm interested to know how you could know such a thing, John. Please enlighten the rest of us.

>Yours for "accurate representation", > >John Ploetz

Likewise,

Phil Geiger

X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:51:58 -0700 Reply-To: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> Sender: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: Phil Geiger <pgeiger@RMI.NET> Subject: Re: Legal Definition of Author, Original (Steve) Comments: cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org To: FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG

Hello Steve:

You wrote: <snip>

>It is my understanding, based on statements from Forum members, that Sadler >also said, that if were not for the questions produced by the Forum and >transmitted through the Contact Commission, there would be no Papers. If the >Forum had produced different questions and different reactions to the first >drafts of the Papers, the Papers would have been different in content and >form.

Content yes, not necessarily form. As you are probably aware, copyrights are granted not on subject matter, fact, ideas, or content - no matter how that content was eventuated - but for their expressive form. Sadler's statement that "The Papers were published just as we received them. The contact commissioners had no editorial authority. Our job was limited to 'spelling, capitalization, and punctuation" is a confirmation that their form was unchanged from how the Revelators expressed them. A proper analysis of copyright must be focussed strictly on the expressive form of the resulting product.

>To me that means that the Forum and the CC took part in the creative >process of composition that eventuated in the existence of the Papers.

Let's explore that reasoning and apply it to the standards of authorship and copyright law. Say you were given permission to teach a class that had no established curriculum, no textbook. In order to determine the content of that class you both asked and solicited questions from your students. Over the semester break, you gathered your notes from these sessions and wrote a textbook. By your logic, your students would be entitled to some form of copyright in your work, that they somehow "took part in the creative process of composition that eventuated in the existence" of the resulting book. I don't think so.

>That takes care of two of the other characteristics in the definition: >>"creator" and "composer".

Faulty premise, faulty conclusion.

>Now don't get me wrong, it was definitely "co-creation" and >"co-composition" >between celestials and humans and the former had by far >the lion's share of >both. The question is, did the human contribution >meet the threshold for >"minimum creative input." (See below.)

I don't know where you got the phrase "minimum creative input", but it is an inapposite standard to apply when determining original, creative *expression* relative to authorship and copyright.

>>So we have it from the one person who was in a position to know more about >>this question than anyone the statement that no human orignality WHATSOEVER >>was involved in the Papers, not even the kind that would qualify under the >>lesser standards of a compilation copyright (which requires, at a minimum, >>selection and arrangement of the material). > >Well, let's see...I think you're talking end-result and I'm talking process.

Which is exactly the wrong analysis to use.

>IMO, the questions and reactions of the humans of the Forum and CC >constituted some amount of 'originality'.

I'm afraid that's all that it is (an opinion). I find no basis in law for determining such a *process* for determining content has anything to do with determining originality of *expression*.

>>(The fact that Kristen & the UF stipulated that alleged questions were >>asked by the Forum or CC for the purpose of avoiding the expense of a >>trial; and that Judge Schroeder bootstrapped that into an originality >>finding ultimately means very little outside the 9th Circuit. Presumably, >>if another copyright case is brought forth in another district, such a >>stipulation would not be in play. Someone alleging this >>questions=originality claim would have to *prove* that point. > >I defer to your superior legal knowledge on this. But I have seen testimony >(from Helen Carlson, at least) to support the notion of >>"questions=originality."

Again, the issue is originality of expression.

>>And they would have to explain this statement from Emma Christiansen: >>"I can categorically assure you that no humans decided the content of the >>Urantia Book. The Book is as the revelators gave it to us." (Emma >>Christensen, document # 455, 6/16/78; and documents # 455,># 475, and # >>619, 4/20/78. The UF v. Maherraa)) > >To say that no human activity "decided" the content of the UB is open to >interpretation. Were the specific questions and responses by humans >'decisive' and/or contributory to the content of the Papers? Very possibly.

It wouldn't matter in any event.

>Did humans make the ultimate decision as to what was to be included in the >Papers? No.

And that would be the only basis for maintaining even a compilation copyright, based on the requisite standards for selection and arrangement. Strike three.

>>Thus, I can't find any legal basis for the Foundation's authorship claim, >>under any theory that they've offered to date. > >I don't know too much from legal (as my grandmother used to say), but I do >feel I have some understanding of how the Papers were created, and that was >by celestial-human collaboration, in a way analogous to how Melchizedek >supported the truths revealed in the Third ER. (93:10:4)

Revelation is always a blend of evolutionary and revelatory knowledge. Even lacking a "bright line" (as they say in the legal business) that could clearly distinguish the alleged content provided by the Contact Commision/Forum and that supplied by the Revelators, it is the final expressive form of that work that determines authorship (and thus copyrights). And the two people with the most intimate knowledge of how this process occurred relative to the 5th Epochal Revelation are both unequivocal in stating that the resulting form was entirely that of the Revelators.

>How the legal system cuts that up is another question.

(The umpire jerks up his head, thrusts his thumb over his shoulder, points to the dugout, and resets his clicker...)

>Nice to hear from you... > >regards, >steve

A pleasure likewise.

Phil Geiger

Hello Steve:

You wrote: <snip>

>To me that means that the Forum and the CC took part in the creative >process of composition that eventuated in the existence of the Papers.

>That takes care of two of the other characteristics in the definition: >>"creator" and "composer".

Faulty premise, faulty conclusion.

I don't know where you got the phrase "minimum creative input", but it is an inapposite standard to apply when determining original, creative *expression* relative to authorship and copyright.

Which is exactly the wrong analysis to use.

>IMO, the questions and reactions of the humans of the Forum and CC >constituted some amount of 'originality'.

I'm afraid that's all that it is (an opinion). I find no basis in law for determining such a *process* for determining content has anything to do with determining originality of *expression*.

Again, the issue is originality of expression.

It wouldn't matter in any event.

>Did humans make the ultimate decision as to what was to be included in the >Papers? No.

And that would be the only basis for maintaining even a compilation copyright, based on the requisite standards for selection and arrangement. Strike three.

>How the legal system cuts that up is another question.

(The umpire jerks up his head, thrusts his thumb over his shoulder, points to the dugout, and resets his clicker...)

>Nice to hear from you... > >regards, >steve

A pleasure likewise.

Phil Geiger

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:22:59 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com To: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger) Subject: Unity IS Diversity Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org Sender: owner-urantial@ubook.org

I was present a quarter of a century ago during what I recall was the Urantia Foundation's last major call to unity. In 1973, a paper entitled "Unity Not Uniformity" was presented to a Urantia conference in Los Angeles by a then up and coming young UF trustee by the name of Martin Meyers. A well written piece, as I recall, whose principles are said to undergird the UF's recent promotional video on translations.

Though many of us positively swoon at the mere mention of the word unity, I would like to focus on a dimension of the debate that I feel has been overlooked, that occupies a middle ground between the traditional distinction between unity and uniformity; and which I believe has an important bearing on the long-term success of the Revelation. I speak here of the concept of DIVERSITY. My central premise is that, in the rush to unity, we fully appreciate the value of diversity (and its often ugly step-child, conflict) plays in insuring a healthy Urantia movement.

I begin with the following quote from p.1262 (all starred quotes are my personal emphases):

"It is only man's distance from infinity that causes this concept to be expressed as one word. While infinity is on the one hand UNITY, on the other it is DIVERSITY without end or limit."

Thus, at the geographic center of infinity is (to finite minds) a wonderful paradox that goes beyond the mere duality of unity/uniformity. The master pattern for this diversity is found in the central universe:

"...there is nothing in common between the worlds of Havona. Every one of these planets is an original, unique, and exclusive creation; each planet is a matchless, superb, and perfect production. And this diversity of individuality extends to all features of the physical, intellectual, and spiritual aspects of planetary existence." [159]

With such an unimpeachable pedigree, we can better appreciate the role that diversity plays in creation as a whole, while we strive to find common ground in our fledgling movement in the present. True, it easier to define unity in terms of what it is not; that is, by contrasting it with uniformity. But I think this is a lesser approach, in the same way that a negative injunction - "Thou shalt not" - is inferior to a positive injunction such as "Love one another". I believe the greater challenge lies in recognizing what unity IS - diversity in all its teeming manifoldness. Not necessarily an easy task, as the following statement reveals:

"To the circumscribed minds of time-space mortals the universe may present many problems and situations which apparently portray disharmony and indicate absence of effective co-ordination; but those of us who are able to observe wider stretches of universal phenomena, and who are more experienced in *this art of detecting the basic unity which underlies creative diversity* and of discovering the divine oneness which overspreads all this functioning of plurality, better perceive the divine and single purpose exhibited in all these manifold manifestations of universal creative energy." [637]

The good news is that we lowly mortals have access to a whole array of spiritual and mindal resources with which to penetrate this paradox, this "functioning of plurality". While "Man must think in a mortal universe frame" that doesn't mean that we "cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place."[1260] So it is in this spirit that I accept the conceptual baton of unity-is-diversity. I plan to run with it, for at least a couple of miles, where if I find fatigue and falter, I trust that my brothers and sisters will help me finish the race.

For the purpose of this discussion, I see three aspects of the unity-is-diversity debate, arranged in concentric circles:

1. The inner circle. Where diversity and unity are already established. 2. The middle circle. Where unity and diversity seems to be in the process of formation, but may not as yet be recognizable. 3. The outer circle. Where contrary evidence of unity and diversity are manifest, and where fundamental differences are likely to remain for the foreseeable future.

1. Regarding the first circle, I find the basis for unity-is-diversity rooted in the following:

"The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique no two mortals being alike it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity." [1129]

The Master's emphasizes this in his discourse on Spiritual Unity:

"Spiritual unity is derived from the consciousness that each of you is indwelt, and increasingly dominated, by the spirit gift of the heavenly Father. Your apostolic harmony must grow out of the fact that the spirit hope of each of you is identical in origin, nature, and destiny." "In this way you may experience a perfected unity of spirit purpose and spirit understanding growing out of the mutual consciousness of the identity of each of your indwelling Paradise spirits; and you may enjoy all of this profound spiritual unity in the very face of the utmost diversity of your individual attitudes of intellectual thinking, temperamental feeling, and social conduct." [1591]

At the center of the unity-is-diversity universe, we are already spiritually networked via the holographic fragments of Deity that indwell us all. We ARE the part and the whole. For most of us this remains an intellectual understanding only. We Urantia Book students could probably speak for hours on the origin, nature, types, and destiny of Thought Adjusters. Our Hindu brethren acknowledge that presence as the Atman, and in every hello and goodbye, bow respectfully to each other and say "Namaste". Pity we Urantians don't have a similar reminder system. (The closest I usually get is to smile to someone knowledgeable and, in departing say: "Have a namaste").

2. It is the middle circle that I find the most intriguing, since it often requires creative imagination to uncover the subtle connections of unity that appear to be in the process of forming. Here we can sense the inner workings of our guardian seraphim and other celestials forces, part of a vast cosmic conspiracy laboring behind the scenes for our individual, group, and planetary advancement. Here a sense of magic and mystery composes the subtle background music for the melodies of seeming coincidence and serendipity that signal the outworking of the divine plan. A chance encounter, a book or other informational source seems to appear at just the right time. Acquaintances, unappreciated for their undiscovered potential, suddenly become a bridge to greater understanding, of service possibilities multiplied.

It is in this respect that I choose to view the appointment of Mo and Gard as trustees. I've known both of them for years, and have at least the benefit of some meaningful interaction with them, some on-going communication pathways. With Gard I share a monastic resonance, and greatly appreciate the time we spent together in Vancouver last summer where we participated in a small breakout group exploring the realities of religious experience. I expect that he will lend a sympathetic ear to those concerned with the Urantian religious identity issue. And Mo, whose contributions to the Revelation over the past three decades are well known, is at last free of what I suspect was an intense desire to become a trustee. BEING a trustee will allow him to focus his considerable energies exclusively on dissemination activities. It is my sincere hope that he balance those efforts between fostering a religion, as the Declaration of Trust requires, with the secular activities of inviolate book publishing and distribution. He has stated his strong dislike of lawsuits many times, and I hope he can influence the Foundation accordingly.

3. And finally we arrive at the outer circle, where the sparks of conflict and controversy fly. The issues are well known and have been discussed in great detail - copyright, trademarks, authorship issues, fair use, press statements, lawsuits - I need not dwell on them here. Rather I wish to highlight the dynamic role that conflict plays in the overall unity/diversity equation.

"New religious insights arise out of conflicts which initiate the choosing of new and better reaction habits in the place of older and inferior reaction patterns." [1097]

Inferior reaction patterns like flaming one's opponents, for instance. When the flames cool and a more brotherly tone returns, new religious insights should be possible.

"New meanings *only* emerge amid conflict; and conflict persists only in the face of refusal to espouse the higher values connoted in superior meanings. Religious perplexities are inevitable; there can be no growth without psychic conflict and spiritual agitation." [1097]

Bullseye. Here we find the heart of the unity/diversity paradox: Conflict as a necessary generator of "new meanings". (As Robin Williams used to say: Reality - what a concept). By "new meanings" I take it the Revelators mean relative meanings that are time/space shadows of the superior meanings of the spiritual realms. The relationship between these two levels of meaning can be likened to the relationship between undertones and overtones. The successful harmonization of the higher and the lower produces higher (morontial) values overall, rendering further conflict unnecessary, assuming we embody and "espouse" those higher values.

(Behind the scenes, the Supreme emerges from a dark room, a newly developed film of harmonized meaning in hand. He threads it through his Ultimacy projector, calibrates his trans-temporal/spatial projection mirrors, and the show begins...."It may be that on the upper limits of the finite, where time conjoins transcended time, there is some sort of blurring and blending of sequence. It may be that the Supreme is able to forecast his universe presence onto these supertime levels and then to a limited degree anticipate future evolution *by reflecting this future forecast back to the created levels as the Immanence of the Projected Incomplete.*"....Perhaps these future forecasts, based on creature submitted harmonized meanings, are rendered in our superconscious browsers as "picturizations of destiny" [1209]; or maybe even as some seer's prophetic vision...."Such phenomena may be observed wherever finite makes contact with superfinite, as in the experiences of human beings who are indwelt by Thought Adjusters that are veritable predictions of man's future universe attainments throughout all eternity." [1209] Pictures of ourselves as we are to be, as our Adjusters see us....Now back to our regularly scheduled program.)

Some of the "new meanings" I've derived from this last decade of conflict dominated diversity include:

1. A deeper appreciation of the socialized religious dimension of the Revelation - of BELIEVERS, in contrast to the secular READER image that predominated in previous decades. 2. As a result of studying the legal issues surrounding the Foundation's lawsuits, I've come to a deeper appreciation of the Constitution of the United States, with its guarantees of free religious expression, and the purpose of copyright law in expanding the public good, especially as it concerns the expanded fair use of the Revelation. 3. A deeper understanding of the moral dimension surrounding questions of dissemination; of the need for truthful representation of the Revelation. 4. A deeper understanding of the Urantia Papers themselves, thanks to Kristen Maherraa's electronic study aid, which has brought home to me "new meanings" of the Urantia Papers beyond anything I'd understood before.

Further proof of the role that conflict plays in the finite realms is found in the following:

"Moral choosing is usually accompanied by more or less moral conflict." [1131]

"Forewarn all believers regarding the fringe of conflict which must be traversed by all who pass from the life as it is lived in the flesh to the higher life as it is lived in the spirit." [1766]

"The progression of religious growth leads from stagnation through conflict to co-ordination..." [1099]

Perhaps that's what we have been experiencing this last decade in the Urantia movement. Stagnation dominated previous decades, fueled by a misconceived "slow growth" policy. To break out of that stagnant state of affairs, conflict was necessary. Perhaps now we can move on to co-ordination. Not through the homogenization of differences - unity at any cost; but through a respectful appreciation of differences, as embodied in distinct groups that define their own moral, religious, and ethical parameters. As Phil Calabrese has pointed out, spiritual unity is not the same thing as organizational unity. In any number of domains, from ecosystems to economics, diversity is often the key to long term survival.

However, some level of cooperation should be possible amongst groups organized around differing values systems employing different methodologies. An achievable goal for the Urantia community at this point could be, not organizational unity, but "group solidarity based upon loyalty, fairness, tolerance, and love." [1373]. (solidarity: union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests; a community of responsibilities and interests)

Let us thus celebrate our diversity as embodying some level of unity while each of us live within the moral dictates of our consciences. For instance, there are those of us who will never accept the golden leash of trademark licensing; or the tortured logic used to justify human claims of authorship and trademark 'coining' (which logic reminds me all too much of Ann Margaret in the Cincinnati Kid nail-filing jigsaw puzzle pieces into place to conform to her picture of reality). Yes, we can be accused of moral preening from the sidelines in our call for a higher standards of truth in representing the Revelation to the world, but we believe such calls are consistent with the Revelators' teachings. Like katana swords whose legendary strength is said to be attributable to alloys incorporating heavenly (meteoric) substances, incorporating the heavenly teaching of the Revelators should encourage us to adopt higher moral and ethical standards, strengthening our moral mettle to the end that we are less susceptible to the many evils that secular compromise entails.

Of course that doesn't mean we can't give the divisive accusations and judgments a rest now and then (everyone deserves a honeymoon). The trustee appointments of Mo and Gard at the very least signals the beginning of a new cycle. When a pendulum reaches the terminus of its cyclical swing, neither going up or down, a state of infinite energy obtains, a brief interlude that resonates with infinity itself. I'd like to think that we are at a similar state of pause in a conflict cycle that has generated sufficient "new meanings" for the while. A pause in which we indulge ourselves in a little spiritual brotherhood, thereby extending the network of personal relationships that will continue throughout our eternal careers. Let's see what a cycle of coordination can produce.

At best, these conflicts have performed a useful function in establishing the parameters of our diversity. For example, we have now among us at least one group that is actively creating a distinct Urantia religious identity. At worst, persistent conflict devoid of meaningful integration of the lessons learned can only help to enforce an unhealthy separateness; and are inimical to the Master's teaching:

"Always we may have diversity of intellectual comprehension and interpretation, even varying degrees of socialization, but lack of spiritual brotherhood is both inexcusable and reprehensible."[1866]

Though the conflicts will likely continue in some form or other (watch for further "new meanings" coming to an event horizon near you), that shouldn't stop us from practicing and perfecting the "art of detecting the basic unity which underlies creative diversity."

"Though they all taught the same truth, each apostle presented his own personal interpretation of the Master's teaching. And Jesus upheld this presentation of the diversity of personal experience in the things of the kingdom..."[1658]

Celebrating the unity-is-diversity paradox,

Phil Geiger

X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:50:19 -0700 Reply-To: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> Sender: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: Phil Geiger <pgeiger@RMI.NET> Subject: Trademarks & Other Misrepresentations (was GC#11) Comments: cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org To: FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG

Lee Armstrong wrote: <snip>

>Phil writes: >Say for the record, Lee. Do you believe that the Word "Urantian" was >coined- invented- by the Urantia Foundation, as they claimed to the >Trademark Office? An honest answer, please. > >Lee (previously): >Phil, I believe the word "Urantia" and "Urantian" originated in and is >unique to The URANTIA Book which makes appropriate the use of the term. > >Phil responds: >Then one can only conclude that the Urantia Foundation didn't invent it, as >they claimed to the Trademark Office. Thank you. > >Phil, your logic makes the same moralistic judgment based on the lay >definition of the term "coined and invented" that were used in the >propoganda against URANTIA Foundation on the work for hire issue.

No, my conclusions are based on the legal definition of the word "coined", with respect to trademark law, and how the Urantia Foundation (mis) represented its trademark application to the US government.

>"Work for hire" is a term that has a legal standing.

So do a lot other terms, none of which validate your contention that I am using "coined" to means anything other than in its legal sense. Since you are relying on a legal definition, but don't supply one, allow me. From Black's Law Dictionary:

"Fanciful mark. A trademark consisting of a *made-up* or *coined word* is said to be "fanciful." Such marks are considered inherently distinctive, and thus are protected at common law, and are eligible for Trademark Act registration, from the time of first use."

(Note: Just as there are differing levels of copyright protection, so there different levels of trademark protection. "Fanciful" marks enjoy the highest protection, because they are "made up".)

Now compare Black's legal definition to the Foundation's use of the term in it's Amended Trademark application for the term "Urantian", dated Dec. 16, 1974, original application dated Dec. 21, 1973. (Caption "Remarks"):

"In response to the Examiner's inquiry, the designation URANTIAN is not a dictionary word. It is a *coined word* - formed by, and from the name of Applicant Foundation..."

Coined. Made up. Not a dictionary word. Invented. Now back to Black's Law Dictionary. (Note my ***emphasis***).

"Trademark.

Generally speaking, a distinctive mark of authenticity, through which the products of particular manufacturers or the vendible commodities of particular merchants may be distinguished from those of others. It may consist in any symbol or in any form of words, but, as its office is to point out distinctively the origin or ownership of the articles to which it is affixed, it follows that ***no sign or form of words can be appropriated as a valid trademark which, from the nature of the fact conveyed by its primary meaning, others may employ with equal truth and with equal right for the same purpose.*** Koppers Co., Inc. v. Krupp-Koppers, D.C.Pa., > 517 F.Supp. 836, 840."

Probably why the UF said it "coined" the word, Urantia(n), huh? A brilliant, preemptive strike. Too bad for those groups who might want to use the "PRIMARY MEANING" of these terms," with equal truth and with equal right for the same purpose." Like calling themselves Urantians, for instance. Maybe even publishing newsletters, journals and such, as part of their potentially Adjuster inspired evangelistic dissemination efforts. But since Urantian has no "primary meaning", being a "made up" word and all, and its status as a commercial branding iron precludes such usage by others, they'll just have to ask for a *license* from the entity who "coined" and now controls it. (Know where I can get one?)

_________________________ "I don't know what you mean by `glory,'" Alice said Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-- till I tell you. I meant `there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But glory doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-- that's all." -- Lewis Carrol, "Through the Looking Glass" _________________________

>Critics of the Foundation have assumed that by saying the revelation was a >"work for hire" equaled denial of superhuman authorship. In the same way >the words "author" and "coined or invented" also are different legally >than connotatively in common usage.

I don't know what "common" usage of the word "coined" you're saying I'm referring to. And since you don't provide a legal definition either, your statement is, practically speaking, useless. Merely pointing out an obvious fact - that legal terms have distinct meanings, sometimes different than common usage - without providing proof of how that applies to the word "coined" in this case, indicates that you don't have an argument.

>Since Urantia Foundation holds the copyright to The URANTIA Book, and >since the words "Urantia" and "Urantian" are unique to this copyrighted >material, a trustee of URANTIA Foundation did not have to personally >invent the >word in order for URANTIA Foundation to trademark a term >unique to their >copyrighted material.

That might be true if the Urantia Book was a work of fiction. George Lucas, and no one else, can trademark Luke Skywalker as a "fanciful trademark", because he "made up" the character. The UF did not "make up" the word "Urantia(n)". It's NOT a fanciful word. Just because the UF was first to get a copyright (on a compiled work, at that) doesn't mean they can appropriate words that have primary meanings. (Note, the UF REPRESENTED that the word was made up "from the name of Applicant Foundation", not from the text of their copyrighted material, as you claim).

> You appear to dearly want to show how the trustees have lied and >were duplicitous about this, but it simply is not the case.

So we're back to making this a personal issue about my alleged desires. I'm just callin' 'em as I see 'em, Lee. I can't help but see this whole trademark thing as a deliberate MISREPRESENTATION, otherwise known as a _ _ _ (self-censored, for those of delicate, unity minded sensitivities). Done for well intentioned purposes, most likely. Nevertheless, the shadow of a hair's turning. A classic ends justifies the mean case. Call me naive, idealistic, self-righteous if you will. I'm trying to be as objective about this as I can. But I keep coming up with the same conclusion.

(Your innuendo about my alleged intentions should help take the spotlight off the facts of the Foundation's actions, for some, at least. However, you should be aware that such ad hominem tactics will likley supply additional psyhic fuel for those who persist in indulging in ad hominem attacks of their own. I thought Conrad's remarks on this issue were right on point).

>Lee (previously) >Whether a superhuman personality invented the word or not would not be of >great concern as a matter of law, according to my understanding. >Phil responds: >Irrelevant to the point that the Foundation claimed *it* invented the word. > >Phil, as the copyright holder and publisher for the copyrighted material, >it is appropriate for URANTIA Foundation to represent that the word >"Urantia" and "Urantian" first appeared in connection with the fifth >epochal revelation. In a legal sense, yes, they as the legal >representative of the revelation did originate the word.

"The legal representative of the revelation"! Not just the publisher of the Urantia Book, charged with keeping an inviolate copy of the text available. But "the legal representative of the revelation". Wow. (Sounds a lot like the Pope's claim to being the legal vicar of Christ and his teachings on earth. Where do I sign up?)

As for your tortured Clintonesque attempts to justify the Foundation's appropriation of the symbols, please refer to the statements about trademarks above.

> Whether the book is actually authored by superhuman personalities is a >matter of faith and not of law as Judge Urbom has already ruled. His >ruling on that was not appealed and stands.

I fail to see how this particular ruling connects with your prior statement(s).

>Phil (previously) >The question about impatience I raised was directed at what I perceive to >be the Urantia Foundation's precipitous action in misrepresenting the >Revelators' teaching about cults, for the short term expediency of >separating themselves from the ACC. Thus I saw your questions as ducking >that issue by trying to turn them back on me. > >Phil, I see this as more than "short term expediency." To have the >revelation mass introduced in connection with a cult would be every bit as >disastrous as having it associated with the Clayton crew when guns, gold, >and sexual liasons were reportable in a "spiritual" community.

That's a misrepresentation of my position. I've suggested that such dis-association is certainly understandable, even desirable. What I objected to was the WAY it was done. Rather than merely omitting facts about the Revelators' rather revolutionary teachings about cults, the Foundation MISREPRESENTED those facts - made a statement(s) that could easily be found to be untrue; thus damaging its own credibility on this and future matters; and to the extent that it is "the legal representative of the revelation", the Revelation as well.

<snip>

>Please join me in praying for the revelation and that things will unfold >with this current situation to bring the highest good for all concerned.

You got it.

<snip>

>When URANTIA Foundation replied to NBC Dateline regarding cults, it was >>proactive and timely.

Proactive and timely is good. Smart is good. Misrepresentation of the Revelators' teachings is bad.

<snip>

>Phil, I hope you desire to be part of that team. We would very much love >to have a Colorado IUA in place by 2000.

Is this the same IUA whose is licensed to use the "primary meaning" of the Revelators' words, when other sincere religionists and believers can't? You're taking your show on the road? Is this where I sign up?

>Love, >Lee

I appreciate the sentiment, Lee. I really do. But if your desire is ever to have a chance of being realized, I'm going to have to hunker down every day for the next two years and concentrate on believing three impossible things before breakfast.

Trying to see you through the looking glass of brotherly understanding,

Phil Geiger

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:44:33 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com To: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger) Subject: Kwan's Q's About Copyright (was:Nancy and Carol Go to Town) Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org Sender: owner-urantial@ubook.org

Kwan writes:

>Dear Lawyers and other legally minded readers: > >Law is one subject I would like to avoid at all possible costs. But this >questions has been haunting.

First off, I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with appropriate grains of salt. I have done a lot of independent study on the issue, which I'm happy to share with you.

>When the agency dealing with copyrights grants an individual or entity the >copyright on a book or something, the decision should be all or nothing. In >other words, the petitioning person or entity gets the copyright to >everthing contained in the book, or nothing in the book.

That depends on what KIND of copyright one has. A literary copyright, for instance, enjoys the greatest type of protection for the copyright holder, because it contains the highest level of creative (original) content, even though it may use facts and ideas that are, of course, never copyrightable. This was the copyright protection afforded to the Urantia Book prior to the Maherraa case. However, since the UB has been ruled to be a COMPILATION, it has compilation copyright protection only. Since compilations deal *primarily* with the expression of uncopyrightable facts and ideas, only their selection and arrangement of those facts and ideas are copyrightable. The net result is that the door of fair use swings much wider now than it did before. (Perhaps this explains the Foundation's recent assignment of a committee to review secondary works seeking fair use exemptions).

For instance, prior to Judge Schroeder's ruling, one couldn't have written a story about Serapatatia, for the same reason one couldn't use the character Yoda from Star Wars- both were considered to be inventions of their authors. But since Serapatatia is now considered to be a *fact*, you can use his character as the basis of a story or a factual work, as long as your own expression of that fact is deemed to be *original*, which as Warren pointed out, doesn't take a lot, these days.

Fair Use ("Easements")

Fair use is an extension of the public good considerations that applies to copyright law (see below), and was codified into statute in the 1976 revision of the Copyright Law. It is considered an equitable rule of reason, meaning that every case of fair use gets its day in court and must be considered on the basis of its individual merits (virtual representation theories need not apply). Fair use analysis is more an art than a science. There are four required (non-exclusive) components involved in a fair use test, covering six (non-exclusive) categories. As applied to literary works, categories such as educational use, criticism, etc., are problematic enough. Applied to factual works such as the Urantia Book, however, the problems are magnified. This is due to the necessity of clearly distinguishing the *original* components of a compiled work for which an author is entitled copyright protection.

In fair use cases involving the Urantia Book (something that has never been litigated), that means that the Urantia Foundation will have to make it clear exactly which components of the text constitute their *original* contribution, if they want copyright protection *beyond* the kind of mere verbatim copying that Judge Schroeder found and disallowed in the Maherraa case. There is a copyright, but it is a very weak one. Though the alleged questions asked by the Forum and Contact Commission were found to constitute some level of human "authorship", the exact contributions were never identified because Maherraa's challenge was not a fair use one. To judge the verbatim copying issue, the Court needed to find only that "The extremely low threshold level of creativity required for copyright protection was met."

(BTW, I don't believe the mere re-formatting of the text, with dual columns, etc. satisfies the human creativity test, since these changes would most likely be considered to be merely "mechanical" in nature).

Fair use challenges to this weakened copyright will center on the question of what exactly *were* the *original* contributions of the human "authors" (the law puts the burden of proof on the Foundation; admissible evidence could be expected to include such things as: lists of questions asked; early and revised drafts of the text; notes on the editing process, etc.). Even if the Urantia Foundation could *prove* what their original contributions were, they will have at least two additional barriers to overcome in each and every case alleging fair use.

Firstly, with regards to the expression associated with describing, arranging, or selecting factual material, there are only so many ways which a fact can be expressed. This brings to bear something called the Merger Doctrine, which, in essence, states that:

"It is also well established that, in order to protect the immunity of ideas from private ownership, when the expression is essential to the statement of the idea, the expression will also be unprotected, so as to insure free public access to the discussion of the idea." CCC Information Services...44 F.3d 61 (1994).

Fair use challenges invoking the Merger Doctrine could thus argue that the alleged question/answer process that produced the text as we know it has created such an admixture of idea and expression that they are inseparable, thus not protectible.

Secondly, historical works, such as an epochal revelation, have their own peculiar fair use considerations. "To avoid a chilling effect on authors who contemplate tackling an historical issue or event, broad latitude must be granted to subsequent authors who make use of historical subject matter, including theories and plots."; "thematic presentations, structured chronologically, are not copyrightable."; "the cause of knowledge is best served when history is the common property of all." (Hearn v. Meyer 664 F.Supp 832 (1987)).

All of the above raises an interesting moral question, that is, one that involves public policy considerations: If the Foundation can't prove its alleged original contributions to the text - its particular *original* expression; and/or a court finds that "the expression is essential to the statement of the idea", what moral or legal claim can the Foundation have against others intent on satisfying the overarching intent of copyright law to increase the public good, by fair use excerpting of large portions of the text via various secondary works?

>Copyright law seems to be based on the idea of private ownership.

No, it is based on the idea of extending public knowledge of the arts and sciences. That's why copyrights expire, and their material placed into the public domain. Copyrights are only awarded as temporary incentives so that creators can recoup their costs and go on to create more potential public domain material. "The policy embodied into law is to encourage authors to publish innovations for the common good." (CCC... 44F.3d 61 (1994).

>When you buy a product, you are given full ownership, except some possible >easements. When you marry a person, you do not permit some others to share >that person in the sense of sexual relationship. You either have it, or you >do not.

See above. (I must say for the record I am a bit discomfitted by your analogical inference that a spouse constitutes property of some sort, though I am quite willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intend it that way. Also, the Foundation didn't "buy" the Revelation, as in "work for hire". It was given to them in Trust to benefit all humanity)

>I have exposed too much of my ignorance on the subject, and I hope someone >knowledgeable could shed some light on the subject. > >Kwan

Kwan, you might be interested to know that the copyright clause in the constitution was written by the same man who wrote the freedom of religious expression clause (James Madison, my personal candidate for an historical example of a destiny reservist). I can't help but admire the synergy that results from considering how both these founding principles of American jurisprudence - freedom of religious expression, and encouraging the expansion of the public domain's intellectual assets - converges in consideration of the 'fair use' of the 5th Epochal Revelation. This especially applies to those of us who believe that the book is exactly what its true authors say it is - a divine revelation from God, and its disssemination, a religious issue. (Compare with the Urantia Foundation's statements to the courts that it is not a religious book). But such is beyond the scope of this particular discussion. I'll be happy to discuss it at a future time.

I hope that at least some of this is helpful to you.

Yours in the Fair Use of the Revelation,

Phil Geiger

X-Sender: pgeiger@rmi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:44:33 -0700 To: <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: Phil Geiger <pgeiger@rmi.net> Subject: Re: Geiger Counter#10 Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org Sender: owner-urantial@ubook.org

Lee Armstrong writes:

>Phil questions: >Again, do you, Lee Armstrong, believe the goal of "protection" justifies >the lying means used to obtain the Urantian trademark? > >Phil, I believe the goal of protection is quite important. However, since >from my viewpoint no "lying" took place on the part of URANTIA Foundation, >we don't have a problem.

Yet you've admitted that you believe the term Urantia and Urantian originated with the Urantia Papers. I quote: "Phil, I believe the word "Urantia" and "Urantian" originated in and is unique to The URANTIA Book which makes appropriate the use of the term." How can the Foundation not be lying when they say THEY invented the word Urantian? How can you possibly "view" it both ways?

> Protecting the name was something directed to do by the revelators.

Perhaps. But do you believe the Revelators would have the Trustees of the Urantia Foundation lie to the Trademark Office to get that particular form of protection? Even if no other alternatives existed? Do you understand that there could have been other ways to accomplish this same goal?

(Oh, that's right. You said the other day that: "URANTIA Foundation has always been impeccably honest and moral...")

>I am quite happy that because of this wise protection, >the Aquarian Concepts Community is not free to call itself Urantian >Aquarian concepts which the path you appear to advocate would lead to.

If every study group, society, and other UP related organization that arose since the Papers were first published 42 years ago had called themselves "Urantians", the term would have spread sufficiently so that the occasional "strange preachers" among us wouldn't be able to monopolize the spotlight like the ACC is doing NOW; and doing so DESPITE the commercial trademark "protections" that were put in place to prevent such an occurrence. The irony that groups of sober, sincere, and self-less Urantians believe that, unless they join the IUA, that they can't use the word Urantia(n) in their title, while others who deny some of the cardinal teachings of the Urantia Papers, such as reincarnation, will now be associated with Urantia Book, shouldn't escape us. Beside, there's nothing in the law that I know of that would prevent the ACC from calling themselves "ACC of The Urantia Book", since book titles aren't trademarkable. (Witness CUBS: The Center For Urantia Book Synergy, who, with very little money, fought the Foundation to a tie over the right use the name of the book in their title). By setting itself up as the OFFICIAL representative of the 5th Epochal Revelation; by commercially trademarking revealed symbols and suppressing diversity thereby, the Foundation has made its own bed and now has to *lie* in it. Asking the rest of us to jump in at his point, in the name of unity or anything else, without so much as acknowledging and dealing with the issues that divide us, is asking us to ignore our moral concerns about the need for the truthful representation of the Revelation.

Two hundred years ago the Founding Fathers of the US confronted a similar situation, and resolved it in a way I believe is applicable to our own dilemma. Coming on the heels of the bloody religious wars that had devastated much of Europe, it was thought by many (including the great liberal John Locke) that a *uniformity* of religious belief, in the form of an established state religion, was a "safer", lesser evil, then allowing for the uncontrolled freedom of religious expression demanded by the likes of the "strange preachers" of those days - the evangelicals. Such seemingly diametrical forces were brought to a state of *unity* only by the mutual recognition that in diversity there is strength; that by letting a thousand flowers bloom, a natural set of checks and balances would occur, and no one group could grow so powerful as to lord it over the others. History has proven them right.

Similarly, a great diversity of Urantian groups, beholden to no one dominant group such as the Foundation, would provide an innoculatory influence on the inevitable mutants that arise amongst us (God bless them all). An instructive analogy for this principle is found in a modern understanding of the immune system, where "strange" organisms are not always attacked outright (except in cases of massive infection); but are incorporated into the body and subjected to it's own regulatory controls mechanisms. This process builds up natural immunities, accommodating diversity thereby.

>So yes, I believe this protection is very wise. And no, I do not believe >URANTIA Foundation lied.

I'm in awe of your power of denial on this issue, Lee. And it seems that the Foundation shares your perspective as well.

>Phil quotes:

For the purpose of putting the moral dimension in clear play...

> Page-192 > These scientific, moral, and spiritual insights, these cosmic >responses, are innate in the cosmic mind, which endows all will creatures. >*The experience of living never fails to develop these three cosmic >intuitions; they are constitutive in the self-consciousness of reflective >thinking. But it is sad to record that so few persons on Urantia take >delight in cultivating these qualities of courageous and independent cosmic >thinking.* > >Phil, this is a marvelous quote. However it does not say that your >thinking is error-free.

I didn't offer it as proof of such. My point is that the moral sense is a constitutive part of our makeup, which we ignore at our peril. Especially as it concerns the accurate representation of the Revelation.

> Page-192 > <snip> *Moral intuition, the realization of duty, is a component of human mind >endowment* and is associated with the other inalienable of human nature: scientific >curiosity and spiritual insight. Man's mentality far transcends that of >his animal cousins, but it is his moral and religious natures that >especially distinguish him from the animal world. > >Phil, another marvelous quote! However, this does not say that because you are >having an intuition that anyone else should consider it a correct intuition.

Same answer as above.

> Page-193 > <snip> *virtue is realized by the consistent choosing of good rather than evil, >and such choosing ability is evidence of the possession of a moral nature.* > >Phil, what a beautiful quote. What relation does it have to your posting?

Notice the emphasis on choices. It is a pattern of choices that the Urantia Foundation has made over the years - lying to the Trademark Office, disobeying its own DOT to keep the text inviolate, issuing two press statements in the last few months that misrepresent the Revelators' teachings on religion and cults, et al, that raises moral questions of leadership, for at least some of us, and acts as a barrier to well meant calls for unity. Since "Unresolved conflicts destroy unity..."[1480] there is little point in sweeping all these issues under the rug. That only guarantees failure, in my understanding of the Revelators' teaching.

>Certainly, URANTIA Foundation has demonstrated great virtue by remaining >true to its trust which was given to them by the superhuman revelators >responsible for the FER.

Not so certain.

>This stands in dark contrast to the agencies calling for self-liberty to do whatever >they want with the material aspects of the revelation, and mortals with self->centered deliberation insisting that the universe adjust to their time schedule. >Come to the Light, brother!

It's the UF that's currently stepping up the timetable, with its unripe call for unity.

> Page-193 > Man's choosing between good and evil is influenced, not only by the > keenness of his moral nature, but also by such influences as ignorance, > immaturity, and delusion. A sense of proportion is also concerned in the > exercise of virtue because *evil may be perpetrated when the lesser is >chosen in the place of the greater as a result of distortion or deception.* The >art of relative estimation or comparative measurement enters into the practice >of the virtues of the moral realm. > >So what's holding you back from getting rid of these negative mental >influences that keep you from supporting URANTIA Foundation and helping as >a part of the team?

My moral conscience.

>As much as I disagree with your opinions, I can hardly >call you "ignorant, immature, and deluded." At least, not when I'm so full >of love and compassion for you as I now am.

Ah, shucks...

> Page-193 > *Moral acts are those human performances which are characterized by > the highest intelligence, directed by selective discrimination in the >choice of superior ends as well as in the selection of moral means to attain these > ends.* Such conduct is virtuous. > >Phil, what an excellent quote! And when the superhuman revelators gave >instructions about this, it showed such a level of great intelligence, >selective discrimination, to follow their advice to the superior end which >they envisioned.

But do you think they approved of the MEANS subsequently employed by the humans who had to *choose* HOW to carry out such instructions?

>I hope you can get past the misinformation you have accepted, and come join the >team.

>Phil, I've snipped the rest of the quotes since they didn't deal with the >issues we've raised. My thanks to for Les Rodgers whoever he is for >culling such a marvelous series of quotes.

I'll pass on your thanks to les.

All for now.

Phil Geiger

X-Sender: pgeiger@pop.netone.com Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 11:03:05 -0700 Reply-To: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> Sender: "The FORUM at WWW.URANTIA.ORG" <FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: Phil Geiger <pgeiger@RMI.NET> Subject: Foundation Press Statement Comments: cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org To: FORUM@WWW.URANTIA.ORG

At 04:26 PM 2/6/98 -0600, Kathleen Swadling wrote:

>Dear List Members, > >Due to popular demand, I'm posting below the 2 statements the Foundation >sent to Dateline -- one on ACC and the other on Channeling.

<snip>

>February 2, 1998 > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >Re: Aquarian Concepts Community -- Gabriel of Sedona

<snip>

>There is no teaching in The URANTIA Book that advocates the formation of >cults and URANTIA Foundation does not endorse or condone any such activities.

For the record, here is some of what the Revelators say about the functions of cults in societies. My dictionary (RHUD) defines "advocate" as: "to speak in favor of". Seems to me that the Revelators, while listing the many negative permutations of cults throughout history, in their typically balanced way, offer "the..rest..of..the..story". My reading of the quotes below shows them speaking favorably of the role of cults in society, in direct opposition to Tonia's public *interpretation* of this material (similar to the Vatican issuing one of it's formal statements, called appropriately enough, a Bull. Thus this *official* statement by Tonia might be called "The Foundation's Bull". Recall they did the same thing a few months back when Tonia told the press that the Revelators warn against starting a religion).

If the Urantia Foundation's call for unity in the Urantia movement is to carry any weight, among other things, it should at least pay more attention to how they represent the Revelator's words.

____________________________

7. NATURE OF CULTISM The cult type of social organization persisted because it provided a symbolism for the preservation and stimulation of moral sentiments and religious loyalties. The cult grew out of the traditions of "old families" and was perpetuated as an established institution; all families have a cult of some sort. Every inspiring ideal grasps for some perpetuating symbolism--seeks some technique for cultural manifestation which will insure survival and augment realization--and the cult achieves this end by fostering and gratifying emotion.

Page-965 Notwithstanding that the cult has always retarded social progress, it is regrettable that so many modern believers in moral standards and spiritual ideals have no adequate symbolism--no cult of mutual support--nothing to belong to.

Page-965 The early Christian cult was the most effective, appealing, and enduring of any ritual ever conceived or devised, but much of its value has been destroyed in a scientific age by the destruction of so many of its original underlying tenets. The Christian cult has been devitalized by the loss of many fundamental ideas.

Page-965 In the past, truth has grown rapidly and expanded freely when the cult has been elastic, the symbolism expansile. Abundant truth and an adjustable cult have favored rapidity of social progression. A meaningless cult vitiates religion when it attempts to supplant philosophy and to enslave reason; a genuine cult grows.

Page-966 Regardless of the drawbacks and handicaps, every new revelation of truth has given rise to a new cult, and even the restatement of the religion of Jesus must develop a new and appropriate symbolism. Modern man must find some adequate symbolism for his new and expanding ideas, ideals, and loyalties. This enhanced symbol must arise out of religious living, spiritual experience. And this higher symbolism of a higher civilization must be predicated on the concept of the Fatherhood of God and be pregnant with the mighty ideal of the brotherhood of man.

Page-966 The old cults were too egocentric; the new must be the outgrowth of applied love. The new cult must, like the old, foster sentiment, satisfy emotion, and promote loyalty; but it must do more: It must facilitate spiritual progress, enhance cosmic meanings, augment moral values, encourage social development, and stimulate a high type of personal religious living. The new cult must provide supreme goals of living which are both temporal and eternal--social and spiritual.

Page-966 No cult can endure and contribute to the progress of social civilization and individual spiritual attainment unless it is based on the biologic, sociologic, and religious significance of the home. A surviving cult must symbolize that which is permanent in the presence of unceasing change; it must glorify that which unifies the stream of ever-changing social metamorphosis. It must recognize true meanings, exalt beautiful relations, and glorify the good values of real nobility.

Page-966 But the great difficulty of finding a new and satisfying symbolism is because modern men, as a group, adhere to the scientific attitude, eschew superstition, and abhor ignorance, while as individuals they all crave mystery and venerate the unknown. No cult can survive unless it embodies some masterful mystery and conceals some worthful unattainable. Again, the new symbolism must not only be significant for the group but also meaningful to the individual. The forms of any serviceable symbolism must be those which the individual can carry out on his own initiative, and which he can also enjoy with his fellows. If the new cult could only be dynamic instead of static, it might really contribute something worth while to the progress of mankind, both temporal and spiritual.

Page-966 But a cult--a symbolism of rituals, slogans, or goals--will not function if it is too complex. And there must be the demand for devotion, the response of loyalty. Every effective religion unerringly develops a worthy symbolism, and its devotees would do well to prevent the crystallization of such a ritual into cramping, deforming, and stifling stereotyped ceremonials which can only handicap and retard all social, moral, and spiritual progress. No cult can survive if it retards moral growth and fails to foster spiritual progress. The cult is the skeletal structure around which grows the living and dynamic body of personal spiritual experience--true religion.

Cultivating a balanced and truthful exposition of the Revelation,

Phil Geiger

Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 10:54:57 -0700 (MST) To: The URANTIA Book Discussion Group <URANTIAL@WWW.URANTIA.ORG> From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger) Subject: Re: Agitated Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org Sender: owner-urantial@ubook.org

Nigel writes:

>Hi Jeff (and others feeling agitated), > >The Foundation is actually a book publisher.

Actually, Nigel, it is also a public trust charged with "the fostering of a religion, a philosophy, and a cosmology which are commensurate with Man's intellectual and cultural development." [2.1. PRINCIPAL OBJECT, DOT].

AND, actually, it exists "to disseminate the principles, teachings, and doctrines of THE URANTIA BOOK." [2.2. CONCORDANT OBJECTS, DOT]

AND, "It shall be the duty of the Trustees to disseminate the teachings and doctrines of THE URANTIA BOOK and to devise, to develop, and to effectuate means and methods for such dissemination, and to apply and use the Trust Estate for the accomplishment of that end." 3.4 DISSEMINATION OF TEACHINGS OF THE URANTIA BOOK, DOT]

AND, its Trustees swear to "sincerely and truly advocate the dissemination of such teachings" [SECTION 2.5. QUALIFICATION FOR TRUSTEES, By-LAWS]; and can be removed if they have " done or permitted any act or thing which is inconsistent with or in degradation of the teaching of the URANTIA BOOK" [SECTION 2.4. REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES, By-LAWS]

Sounds like a bit more responsibility than a mere "book publisher" to me.

As to what *disseminate* means - here you have the fulcrum point around wh