Reply to Eric Pement's Cornerstone Article on the Urantia Book
-by Norm Du Val - Rev. March, 2004>Srce: CORNERSTONE magazine, vol. 20, issue 97, pp. 19, 23.
>Date: 1992
>THE URANTIA BOOK: A Brief Description and Its Secret Author
> DiscoveredThis is false. The "secret author" has not been discovered. And in fact, the true authors are listed right in the Table of Contents.
>Note: Electronic text [of the Cornerstone article] is somewhat expanded from the printed edition.
>A book which appears frequently in the hands of mystical, New Age,
>and spiritual seekers is THE URANTIA BOOK. Easily recognizable as
>a massive blue $34 hardback, THE URANTIA BOOK consists of 2097 pages
>of channeled material.This is out of date information of course. Prices have changed, and there are other editions from other publishers. There was also an exact facsimile of the First Printing done, some 5,000 copies by Pathways. And, the book was not channeled. Channeling requires a spirit being invading a human mind. That didn't happen with the Urantia Papers.
>Though first published in 1955, the bulk
>of its material was actually channeled in the early 1930s.It wasn't channeled.
> (Its
>publishers and supporters dislike speaking of THE URANTIA BOOK in
>terms of "channeling" or "spirit mediumship," since this draws attention
>to its anonymous human author, who wished his identity to be kept
>a secret.)The truth is that its publishers and supporters dislike speaking of THE URANTIA BOOK in terms of channeling, because it wasn't channeled. It's that simple. Nor does it have an "anonymous human author." The person this refers to was certainly involved as a "contact" person, but the authors of the papers of the book are listed right in the book.
>After nearly forty years of mystery, the author's veil of anonymity
>has finally been removed.Not true. Someone has a name they think is right, but they have no way of knowing. It's called guessing. The spiritual beings who gave us the book do not want another Joseph Smith or Paul or John Wesley associated with the Revelation and the identity has not been discovered, nor will it probably ever be. Nor does it matter. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you heard a great symphony by Mozart would you need to know his name to know it was good?
>The story behind the channeler's "secret
>identity" is actually quite fascinating.That person was not a "channeler," but was indeed a contact person, and it is a fascinating story even if his "secret identity" is not known.
>But first, some background information about the book.
>
>There are currently more than 235,000 copies of THE URANTIA BOOK
>in print in two languages, English and French. Translations in Spanish
>and Finnish are forthcoming later, as well as a computerized
>version for electronic searches. Independent and "unauthorized"
>URANTIA BOOK readers have published a massive CONCORDEX and other
>study materials.Generally true, though dated.
>THE URANTIA BOOK contains 196 separate messages (plus a Foreword)
>from alleged disembodied beings in "higher" universes.In "Christianity" these "alleged disembodied beings in 'higher" universes'" are known as ANGELS, and such. And "higher" universes are called "Heaven." Exactly the same. Isn't it amazing how much spin someone can put on ANGELS by calling ANGELS from another person's religion "disembodied beings in 'higher' universes?" That's not honest. One Christian that I communicated with about this Cornerstone material had a signature line at the bottom of her posts which read "THE MOST DANGEROUS LIE IS THAT WHICH MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE TRUTH." (Caps were hers, not mine.) That's what referring to angels from other people's religions as "alleged disembodied beings in 'higher universes'" is, sort of a lie.
>Their discourses
>resemble what one might expect from religious alien intelligences,...Again, look at what can be done to ANGELS if you refer to them as "religious alien intelligences." Absolutely amazing! And absolutely dishonest if all you mean to do is put a spin on angels from another person's beliefs. Please dear Christians, renounce this form of twisting. You don't need it. And yes, I agree. Their discourses resemble what one might expect from angels who are giving us a new revelation from God's government. That's because they are.
>...complete with galactic councils...
You mean like the "Ancient of Days" in Daniel 7:9 (which should actually read "Ancients of Days," plural), or perhaps this:
"And round about the throne [were] four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. Revelation 4:4Hey, maybe THAT'S one of the "galactic councils?" If you want to find out more you'll have to read The Urantia Book. It's all there.
>...and interstellar colonization projects by angelic hierarchies.
?? The Father plants life on His planets, you know, like Adam and Eve? Same deal. If you want to know how Adam and Eve really got here, guess what book you'll have to read?
>The "messengers" identify themselves with
>names like Divine Counselor, Melchizedek, Life Carrier, Midwayer
>Commission, Brilliant Evening Star, and Perfector of Wisdom. The
>planet Earth (which they refer to as "Urantia") is said to be down
>near the bottom of a cosmic scale of galaxies, universes, and super-
>universes, all inhabited by billions of physical, etheric, and angelic
>beings.I can't find much wrong with that paragraph, except maybe the tone of it. It's fairly good, really. Melchizedek is in the Bible too, did you know, so why are you making fun of him? (See Gen 14:18, Ps 110:4 and Heb 5:6, 5:10. 6:20, 7:1, 7:10, 7:11, 7:15, 7:17, and 7:21 Amazing, eh?) And by the way, Melchizedek's visit to our planet was the Third Epochal Revelation. He appeared out of nowhere, materialized in the desert, and that is reflected in the partial account in the Bible where it is noted that Melchizedek was:
"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Hebrews 7:3
Ninety-four years later Melchizedek simply walked out into the desert and disappeared the same way he had arrived. But you can read all about it in the Urantia Book.
>The book is divided into four sections, describing an array of universes,...
Well, not exactly. The Urantia Book uses the term "universe" much as we today use the term "galaxy," and as you probably know, there really is an "array" of galaxies. The Urantia Book also describes subsections of galaxies as "local universes." It probably should have used the words "sector" or "quadrant" or some such, but instead uses "local universes," which are in fact parts of galaxies, administrative divisions.
>...."correcting" our concepts of God and Spirit, giving the "real" evolutionary
>history of earth and its religions, and offering a detailed revision
>of the life and words of Jesus Christ.Good, except the part about Jesus cannot correctly be called a "revision" of his life, since the Christians really know so little about Jesus' life as it is related in the Bible, and since this is really the full account. Also, the concept that something is a "revision" may imply that the original or generally accepted "orthodox" version was the truth. Just look at the New Testament (NT). Jesus lived on earth for thirty-some years and look at the thin account of it in the NT, not to mention the 18 years of his life that are completely missing. Yes, The Urantia Book does have a "detailed" account of Jesus' life and teachings, over 700 pages devoted to it, one third of the book, written from human and universe records as recorded by God's angels. It is the full and correct account, not a revision per se, except perhaps from a parochial perspective. But you'd have to actually READ it for yourself to see. Do you love Jesus and want to know all about him? How much of The Urantia Book have you read?
>THE URANTIA BOOK begins with
>copious quotations from the New Testament, particularly the writings
>of John.It does? I don't think so. There are many Bible quotes in The Urantia Book here and there, but I'm quite sure not "copious quotations...of John," especially in the beginning of the book. There may be a few. I doubt copious.
>Early on, we learn that the creedal doctrine of the Trinity
>is false...Not true, unless "creedal doctrine" are some sort of keywords here that I'm not understanding. The Trinity is explained in The Urantia Book, and is perhaps more complex than in traditional Christianity and not exactly as traditional Christianity has it figured, but on page 15 it says, "The Paradise Trinity -- the eternal Deity union of the Universal Father, the Eternal Son, and the Infinite Spirit." Isn't that essentially the Trinity you believe in too?
>...--there are really three Trinities and seven Triunities,
>with different members in each.Yes?, well, for a discourse on the above I suggest you read the book. It's too much for me to deal with here. Suffice it to say that Christianity's simple Trinity is not quite correct.
> We also find that Jesus Christ is
>merely the seventh incarnation ("bestowal") ...This is false. Seventh "incarnation" is wrong. The word incarnate means "in the flesh," and Jesus only incarnated once. Incarnation is not interchangeable with "bestowal" for that reason. The Urantia Book does not teach reincarnation. Jesus' visit to our planet was his first and only "incarnation."
>...of Michael of Nebadon (our "local universe"),...
Yes, Michael, the same as noted in the Bible at Dan 12:1 and Rev 12:7. Note too that in Daniel, he's called a "great prince," whereas in another Bible case, Jude 1:9, another "Michael" is called an archangel. Jesus, as Michael, is not an archangel. He is certainly a Prince, and a Prince is a member of a royal family, the Son of the King (God in this case), not a servant as an archangel would be. And again, "local universe" is simply a subsection of our galaxy, more or less.
>... the 611,121st Creator Son sent out by the
>Paradise Trinity. There are many others like him on other worlds,
>all "Michaels" and "only-begotten Sons" in their own right.True. Strange sounding perhaps (at first), different from what one may be used to, but, true. Every new thing takes getting used to. Those open to new truth will have no problem adjusting to it. Jesus revealed new truth too and they crucified him for it. Some aren't open to truth, they think they know it all already and have all the answers. Pharisees.
>Unlike most channeled writings, THE URANTIA BOOK rejects the teachings
>of reincarnation and astrology. However, in line with other mediumistic
>revelations, it is dead-set against traditional Christian doctrines,
>including the inerrancy of Scripture, simple Trinitarianism, the
>Fall of man, original sin, the substitutionary atonement of Jesus
>Christ, faith and repentance for salvation, the resurrection of the
>flesh, and eternal punishment.Except for the loaded terms "dead-set," "channeled writings," and "other mediumistic revelations," I can't argue much with the above. The Urantia Book does have a different take on most of the subjects noted, but then it's a new Revelation, that's what it's for. Even the Bible has problems with itself on some of the above. For example, regarding the "resurrection of the flesh" (meaning Jesus' bodily resurrection) in John 20:27 Jesus tells Thomas to touch him, while in John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him. Christians like to cite John 20:27 to prove that Jesus was flesh and blood when he rose, but they never discuss the other verse which suggests that he was NOT flesh and blood when he rose and that's why Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to attempt to touch him.
>THE URANTIA BOOK records Jesus telling his disciple Nathaniel, "The
>Scriptures are faulty and altogether human in origin" (page 1767);
>and while "the Scriptures contain much that is true, . . . these
>writings also contain much that is misrepresentative of the Father
>in heaven" (1768). The Jesus of THE URANTIA BOOK flatly denounces
>"this erroneous idea of the absolute perfection of the Scripture
>record and the infallibility of its teachings" (1768).Yes, all too true. Can you say in good conscience that the quote below is representative of our loving Father in heaven. I hope not.
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. -1 Samuel 15:3
What shameful material to be in a book attributed to an all loving God. And this, after God had told everyone, "Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13
God is not the monster depicted in 1 Sam 15:3. In the new Revelation, you can find out how God really is. But you have to read it for yourself. But really, with or without The Urantia Book to hold your hand on the subject, a growing and maturing spiritual nature should show you that God never directed that any group go and "utterly destroy" any other group.
And can you find "absolute perfection of the Scripture record" in this quote from the Jewish scriptures which you include in your "Bible?"
"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? [hath he] not [sent me] to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? -2 Kings 18:27
There is simply NOTHING of God in the above quote from "the Holy Book." Nothing at all, and in fact, I am embarrassed for Christians in that regard.
>Likewise, the book says, "There has been no 'fall of man.' The history
>of the human race is one of progressive evolution . . . " (846).
>God's covenant with Israel is referred to as "the chosen-people
>delusion" (1005). And the atonement of Jesus is emphatically denied:
>
>"The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an
>offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and
>penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion
>wholly puerile and primitive. . . .It is an affront to God to
>believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order
>to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath" (60).Yes. Hard words, hard teachings, if one is not used to them. But it's time to face the facts.
>Toward the end of the book we read, "All this concept of atonement
>and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness.
>. . . Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe
>in the fatherhood of God" (2017).Yes. All true. That's what Jesus said in Luke 10:25-28. If we believe Jesus instead of Paul, we come up with the right answers.
>The real gospel of Jesus, according to THE URANTIA BOOK, is simply
>"the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men" (2042, 2059),
>i.e., that "all men are the sons of God" already (1585).All men are the sons of God, but that doesn't mean that all men will embrace the Paradise career (eternal life with God in heaven).
>No act of
>reconciliation is needed, we simply open our eyes to this fact.If we love God and if we know we are a son or daughter of God, we will surely want to act like one. Jesus lays it out for us in Luke 10:25-28. Hear him. That's what God said, don't you know? "This is my beloved Son: hear him." -Mark 9:7 Instead, Christians tune Jesus out and hear Paul.
>Yet even as early as Pentecost, the book laments, the religion OF
>Jesus became twisted into a religion ABOUT Jesus (2066, 2091) and
>thus the original Gospel was lost.Yes. All true again. Have you read Luke 10:25-28? There, Jesus tells us EXACTLY what we must do to have eternal life, and it doesn't involve any "act of reconciliation." If it were required not only that Jesus must die for our sins AND we must believe that in order to be saved, this is how the exchange Jesus had with the lawyer probably would have gone: [my changes in brackets]
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered [almost but not quite] right: this do, [but in addition to this, you must also believe that I have come to die for your sins], and [then] thou shalt live.
Jesus never said it. Isn't it amazing? He was here for thirty some years and had ample opportunity to say everything he need to say, especially with regard to the doctrine that is the *centerpiece* of Christianity. One would think that Jesus would have said it over and over, but he never did. In the example above, Jesus was asked point blank what was required to have eternal life. And the complete answer that was given says absolutely nothing about sacrifices and atonement. But wait, maybe Jesus just forgot. There's an idea. Furthermore, Jesus teaches us how we can have our sins forgiven at Matthew 6:14. And at Matthew 6:15, Jesus clearly says that if we don't forgive others God will not forgive us, no matter what.
>Indeed, with one mighty swipe, THE URANTIA BOOK accomplishes what
>few other cultic writings have expressed in one breath, namely, the
>rejection of every significant doctrine of Christianity and Judaism:True, but The Urantia Book is not a "cultic writing." It's a new revelation from God's government.
>"The cardinal religious ideas of incantation, inspiration, revelation,
>propitiation, repentance, atonement, intercession, sacrifice,
>prayer, confession, worship, survival after death, sacrament,
>ritual, ransom, salvation, redemption, covenant, uncleanness,
>purification, prophecy, original sin--they all go back to
>the early times of primordial ghost fear" (1005).Did someone suggest the Cornerstone review was "unbiased?" Hardly. There is a misstatement above, in the Cornerstone out of context paragraph where it implies that The Urantia Book rejects all of the items in the paragraph cited from The Urantia Book. In the text of The Urantia Book it is just pointing out "that they all go back to the early times of primordial ghost fear." It is not saying they are all invalid. The Urantia Book in fact does teach worship, survival after death, prayer, repentance and others in that list, but not all.
>The surrounding context makes it plain that these relics of an earlier
>age are untrue and should be dispensed with by enlightened humanity.Not true. See above. The surrounding context states that they are from an earlier age, but not that all of them are wrong.
>How did this all come about?
This is a faulty question based on a faulty assumption that The Urantia Book declared all of the above "untrue." Not so. See above. Oh, maybe you mean, "How did this [Urantia Book] all come about?"
>Ironically, it was a Seventh-day Adventist minister and physician
>who was ultimately responsible for the publication of the Urantia
>papers.So what? What is ironic about that? Everybody has to be something, and everyone has a past. Is it "ironic" that Jesus, the founder of Christianity, was a Jew? Is it ironic that you are a ______________ ? (fill in the blank with whatever Christian sect you're a member of). I fail to see what's ironic, except the usage of the term to mislead. And according to the American Heritage Dictionary, most people don't use "ironic" correctly.
>Dr. William S. Sadler, a psychiatrist and professor at the
>University of Chicago and teacher of pastoral counseling at McCormick
>Theological Seminary, had spent over a decade debunking and refuting
>spiritualism, even assisting magician Harry Houdini in this task.
>His better-known works on this subject include THE TRUTH ABOUT
>SPIRITUALISM (1923) and THE MIND AT MISCHIEF: TRICKS OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS
>MIND (1929). However, researcher Steve Cannon tells about something
>that eventually turned Sadler around:
>
>In the appendix of THE MIND AT MISCHIEF Sadler recounts a story of
>one investigation into the psychic realm that he could not debunk.
>From the summer of 1911 until the time of his writing in 1929 he
>had a subject under observation who would go into a deep sleep
>out of which he could not be awakened. Sadler wrote: "This
>man is utterly unconscious, wholly oblivious to what takes place,
>and, unless told about it subsequently, never knows that he
>has been used as a sort of clearing house for the coming and
>going of alleged extra-planetary personalities" (MIND, 383).
>Of the communications themselves, "I can only say that I have
>found in these years of observation that all the information
>imparted through this source has proved to be consistent within
>itself. . . . Its philosophy is consistent. It is essentially
>Christian and is, on the whole, entirely harmonious with the known
>scientific facts and truths of this age" (MIND, 384). Sadler wanted
>to say more on the subject, but the person under investigation would
>not give his permission to do so.[1]The ANGELS and such involved asked Sadler and others to "tell no man." Have you heard that before? "And he straitly charged them, and commanded [them] to tell no man that thing." Luke 9:21 Dr. Sadler was true to the Revelators. Furthermore, he was the perfect person, an honest level headed doctor and a skeptic. Just the man the Revelators were looking for.
>Beginning in 1923, Dr. Sadler invited a group of friends, informally
>known as The Forum, to examine these intelligences, which were now
>rapidly becoming more numerous."these intelligences" = spiritual beings, ANGELS and such. My my, such spin.
>While the channeler slept,...
Objection. No channeling. It's seems as though Mr. Pement figures that if he smears that word onto the Urantia Papers enough times it will stick.
> the spirits
>freely answered questions in a manner not unlike that of Edgar Cayce,
>the famed "sleeping prophet."Who knows? I am not familiar with Cayce, and this is just speculation. Where is this supposed "unbiased" information coming from? And lots of things in this world are "in a manner not unlike" lots of other things. You are simply casting about, doing your best to tar The Urantia Book with channeling, Adventism, Edgar Caycee, etc. But The Urantia Book stands on its own.
>Sadler and his cohorts....
Cohorts? I think "cohorts" can have a pejorative meaning, you know, like "cult." It seems like "associates" or even "friends" might have been a better, more honest word.
>... compiled 4000
>questions they wanted the spirits to answer.Spirits? OK. It's better than "disembodied alien intelligences." Angels would be nice. Or revelators.
>A few weeks later,
>the channeler...No channeler.
>... handed Dr. Sadler a sheaf of 472 pages, answering
>every question which had been put to him/them. The channeler's
>wife...No channeler and no channeler's wife and no channeler's kids or mother in law.
>... told Sadler that the material had been written in a single
>evening.A single evening? I wouldn't know. Never heard that. Sounds unlikely. No, I don't think so, not written by the subject in one evening. Not possible. The clue in the above story was the statement that it was "a few weeks later." It's unlikely that the subject would let a few weeks go by while he sat on a pile of 472 pages that was allegedly written in one night. I wonder where that story came from? There are a lot of "stories" about the book. But what does it matter, a single evening or a month? Maybe it was in the subject's handwriting but the "angels" did the work. Some religions worry about whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or a post. What does it really matter? It's trivia.
>By 1935, the last of the messages was delivered, and the
>entities..."entities," are angels and such. And to the best of my knowledge, the Papers were not coming though the subject in 1934 and 1935, they were simply materializing in Dr. Sadler's safe.
>... asked Dr. Sadler, by now a true believer and an ex-Adventist,
>that the work be published.[2] Twenty years later THE URANTIA BOOK
>appeared in print.
>
>The identity of the channeler...No channeler.
>... was kept secret for many years by the
>Urantia Foundation. In fact, the board of directors took a pledge
>of secrecy not to reveal the human author or its means of transmission.
>However, in 1991 Martin Gardner identified the channeler as Wilfred
>Custer Kellogg, son of Rev. Charles Leonidis Sobeski Kellogg, a Seventh-
>day Adventist minister from Vermont. Wilfred was a shirttail relative
>of W. K. Kellogg, founder of the Kellogg's Cornflake Company, and
>also happened to be William Sadler's brother-in-law (the men had
>married two sisters).Martin Gardner is mistaken and just guessing, for whatever reasons people think they need to ferret out such information. No one knows who the contact person was and no one probably ever will. One can only wonder why anyone would want to know. The authors of the book are listed in the Table of Contents for all to see.
>Wilfred moved to Illinois when he married, and he and his wife lived
>for a time with Dr. and Mrs. Sadler. He was one of the founding
>members of the Urantia Foundation, and his home was half a block
>from the present headquarters of the Foundation in Chicago. He
>died in 1956.
>
>The Adventist background of both Kellogg and Sadler does explain
>a few things. For example, it's a point of Adventist doctrine that
>Jesus is really Michael the Archangel.[3]This has nothing to do with the Urantia Papers since The Urantia Book does not teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. This is a major implied error and mistatement on the part of the writer of the Cornerstone article. The Urantia Book teaches that Jesus is Michael, the son of God, a prince in a royal family, and the same prince that's referenced in the Bible in Daniel and in Revelation.
>Martin Gardner pointed
>out some other interesting parallels with Adventism, notably how
>the name of an Adventist friend of Kellogg, G. W. Amadon, appears
>as an important figure of the Urantia papers.That is interesting, but not quite the way you have wrongly stated it. "G. W. Amadon" does NOT appear in The Urantia Book as it seems to say above. Only "Amadon" by itself appears as the name of a person who lived some 300,000 years ago. Martin's book is riddled with mistakes, dozens and dozens of them as may well be expected from a researcher who is 80 plus years old. Still, it's interesting, assuming that it's even true that Kellogg even had a friend named G. W. Amadon, which we don't really know. There's no reason to think that Gardner is correct. And last, of course, coincidences happen.
>Gardner's articles
>were published in the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Spring 1991, with significant
>corrections in the Fall 1991 issue.Yes, "significant corrections." I wonder why?
The Urantia Foundation officially
>has "no comment" on this matter.
>
>More detailed Christian theological critiques of THE URANTIA BOOK
>have been published in 1987 by Personal Freedom Outreach (PO Box
>26062, St. Louis, MO 23136) and in 1981 by the Spiritual Counterfeits
>Project (PO Box 4308, Berkeley, CA 94704). If you write, please
>send these ministries few dollars to cover the cost of photocopying
>and mailing."More detailed Christian theological critiques of THE URANTIA BOOK" will no doubt be as loaded with problems and slanted opinion as this one was.
>NOTES:
>
>1. Steven F. Cannon, "Evaluating The Urantia Book," PERSONAL FREEDOM
>OUTREACH NEWSLETTER 7, no. 4 (1987): pp. 4-6.
>
>2. The account in this paragraph comes via Cannon, who found a great
>deal of information in a book by Harold Sherman, HOW TO KNOW WHAT
>TO BELIEVE (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publishing House, 1976). Sherman
>was one of the inner circle members of The Forum since 1942 until
>it was disbanded.Harold Sherman was a lone dissident among hundreds of Forum members. I have his book too. Also, I have posted the relevant chapter of Sherman's book on my webpage. You can read it there. There's also a rebuttal to Sherman written by Clyde Bedell, another Forum member, and that's posted too.
>3. While Adventists equate Jesus with Michael the Archangel, they
>also accept the deity of Christ.So too does The Urantia Book teach the deity of Jesus. But The Urantia Book does not equate Jesus with "Michael the Archangel." Nor was Jesus the "Christ" or messiah that the Jews were expecting. The fact of the matter is that, if you've stated Adventism correctly, then it's wrong. Archangels are not Gods. No matter how nice they are, Archangels have no deity. They are just angels.
>They interpret "archangel" to mean
>"leader of the angels."So what? What Adventists interpret has nothing to do with The Urantia Book, contrary to the attempt to link the two. More guilt by association?
>Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand,
>believe Jesus was Michael but reject the deity of Jesus; they consider
>him to be a true angel, i.e., a created being. THE URANTIA BOOK
>also rejects the deity of Jesus Christ.This is totally FALSE. The Urantia Book does not reject the deity of Jesus AND, none of this has anything to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Seventh Day Adventists, except that the teachings of The Urantia Book are somewhere in the middle with relation not only to the JW's and the SDA's teachings on these subjects, but with the Christian teachings as well.
Page 1331 - But make no mistake; Christ Michael, while truly a dual-origin being, was not a double personality. He was not God in association with man but, rather, God incarnate in man.