[MOD: This review originally went out over SAMU-L. It's author, Kevin Christensen, is also on AML-List and has given his permission to reprint it here.]

So this book appears in the U.S., purporting to be a new revelation, containing a long section describing the ministry of Christ. Martin Gardner, noted for his work with a skeptics organization comes along to write an account of the book's origins, offering descriptions of epileptic trace states, writing and rewriting by committee, plagiarisms, contradictions within, and conflicts with science without. No, the book is not the Book of Mormon, but the massive Urantia Book, which was first published in Chicago in 1956. Gardner does make a dozen or so off-hand references to Mormonism and the Book of Mormon along the way, and that is understandable. He apparently sees the Book of Mormon as being something very like the Urantia Book, and quite frankly, settling the question of resemblence or distinction is the appeal of Gardner's book for a Mormon reader. The story of how the Urantia book came to be does rather sound like the way that a number of critics imagined that the Book of Mormon came to be, particularly, the collaborative versions, such as the Rigdon-Smith or Cowdery-Smith theories. But to me, the differences in the stories are quite profound.

Gardner's book offers Mormons a rare opportunity to reflect on our own distinctions in the context of very similar controversies surrounding the production of and belief in the Urantia Book.

As Gardner shows, the Urantia Book grew out the trance states of one Wilfred Kellog, and developed under the direction and editorship of Dr. William Sadler, a psychiatrist who wrote many books himself. Sadler was a devout Adventist who knew Ellen White. Troubled by problems he saw in some of her revelatory testimonies, he left the Adventist faith. (Gardner writes as one who had for a time considered himself an Adventist.) Sadler had spent a considerable amount of time investigating mediums and channelers, considering all but one or two to be frauds or self deceived. The one or two authentic revelations, according Sadler, were White, and Sadler's brother-in-law. In 1911 Sadler found that his brother-in-law, Wilfred Kellog, went into deep trace states every night. Sadler started questioning Kellog during these trace states, became intrigued by the claims of the trance personality, and over many years, after countless questioning sessions, and many cycles of revisions, and contributions by a committee of varied size and membership, Sadler printed the immense and bizarre Urantia Book.

I'd glanced at it once or twice, and read with interest Richard L. Anderson's excellent paper in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, that compared and contrasted the Book of Mormon with a number of pseudo-gospels, including the Urantia Book. Anderson noted that the Book of Mormon was the only new Gospel that does not frequently contradict the New Testament and remake Jesus in the image of the author's doctrinal hobby horses. For example the Urantia volume does not accept the notion of a sacrificial atonement. Many of the miracles are explained away. Gardner shows the Adventist influence in Urantia doctrines, (such as soul-sleep) shows how the scientific content shows a number of factual errors, and several theoretical errors (owing to the progress in science since 1956). He also has several chapters that trace extensive plagiarisms from many sources, ranging from Sadler's own writings to a history of Egypt.

As noted, Gardner makes casual mention of the Book of Mormon several times. He knows that Alma 13 talks about Melchezedek (reporting that male priesthood holders have an iron rule over women), and he also reports that Moroni, in the Book of Mormon, "is a powerful angel." His grasp of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism and the generalizations he makes, are therefore, rather questionable.

Do the translation/channeling techniques compare? Not really. The Urantia channeler was largely unconcious of what was going on and refused to be named during his lifetime. Joseph, according to the eye witness reports, was not disposessed of his own conciousness or personality. Anderson pointed out that none of the other modern pseudo gospels have anything to compare with the witnesses.

What about plagiarisms? This is a familiar charge to Mormons. However, informed Mormons comparing Gardner's elaborate plagiarisms with those offered up as evidence of Joseph's borrowings should see a qualitative distinction. Even those that might appear to be the most self-evident, the 3 Nephi sermons and the Isaiah chapters, offer intriguing nuances and contexts that have no parallel in the defenses of the Urantia volume. (For example, see John Welch's The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount.)

What about the scientific rationalizations that go into the text? Gardner points how the Urantia's science and pseudo-science date it to the fifties. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon contains much that seems strangely out of place. Attempts to read it purely as a reaction to its times still give us things like Harold Bloom's silly report that it tells about the lost ten tribes. John Sorenson has observed how interesting it is that the translator's view of the Book of Mormon geography (hemispheric) is at odds with the text (localized).

What about the time of production? 45 years and a large committee compared to 60 days. And so it goes. Compare and contrast.

Still, it's an intriguing read. In spite of my disagreement with Gardner's tendency to equate the Book of Mormon with channeled texts in general, and given my own experience in reading debunkings by former believers, I'm finding Gardner's book a fascinating read. It's interesting to find something that teaches so much about how we must appear to outsiders, and what is truely different about us. A intriguing place for reflection. A fascinating fun house mirror.

Kevin Christensen
Lawrence, KS