Site Index

Historic Correspondence Archive:
Thomas Kendall's Response to Urantia Foundation's Charges Seeking his Resignation
Thomas A. Kendall


(The following material consists of the full text of the charges against me, and a shortened version of my responses to those charges. The responses were read to the Trustees at a hearing April 28, 1984.)

REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF THOMAS A KENDALL AS TRUSTEE OF Urantia FOUINDATION

CHARGES: The By-Laws of Urantia Foundation at Article II, Section 2.4 provide three independent categories for determining whether an individual Trustee should be removed as a Trustee. They are:

1. When a Trustee has failed or refused to assume and perform his duties and responsibilities.
2. When a Trustee has done or permitted any act or thing which is inconsistent with or in degradation of the teaching of The Urantia Book.
3. When a Trustee by his acts or omissions has brought disrepute upon himself or Urantia Foundation.

In the opinion of his fellow Trustees.

CHARGE I. : Thomas A. Kendall has failed to assume and perform his duties and responsibilities as a Trustee for the following reasons:

CHARGE I. A.: Thomas A. Kendall has shown himself to be subject to the influence of psychic phenomena and related events and has stated to three of the Trustees that he believed Vern Grimsley's alleged spirit communications.

RESPONSE: The Trustees state I am "subject to the influence of psychic phenomea." A review of writings on the subject reveals that psychic phenomena include: contact with deceased humans, poltergeists, psychokinesis, faith healing, psychic cures, talking to plants, out-of-body journeys, precognition and clairvoyance -- none of which I believe.

The primary reason for my removal as President and Trustee appears to be my attitude toward the messages Vern Grimsley claimed to receive. My position is that I can neither prove nor disprove their validity. While the other Trustees do not now believe Vern has been contacted, three, possibly four, Trustees, including myself, did believe in them for a period of nine months. In Jauary 1983, Martin Myers visited Clayton as soon as he learned Vern had purchased the Institute, as instructed by alleged voices. On February 14, 1983, I told Edith Cook about Vern's experiences. She expressed delight that contact had been re-established. I recall no disbelief by either Martin or Edith.

After the "no-publicity" message, Martin invited Vern to stay with him over the weekend of February 25-27. Vern was urged by Martin to appear at the Executive Committee meeting on Friday evening to tell them about his messages. Others were present during that discussion. In May, Martin apparently still had full confidence in Vern because he invited Vern to co-conduct Robert Myers' [Martin's father] funeral service. Over the Labor Day weekend, at the Media Conference in Los Angeles, Martin's speech included (the following) glowing tribute:

(NOTE: This excerpt has been inserted into this memo. The tribute was expunged from later editions of his speech)..."Few will fully understand or know the sacrifices that the dedication of Vern and Nancy and of the co-workers and volunteers has led each of them to make, but many now do and will appreciate their dedication and service in the year to come, not withstanding they have already done a great amount of important work and accomplished much. One can readily anticipate from the signs on the horizon that their real work is only now just beginning." (Emphasis mine)

Two weeks later when the message came about not splitting up the book, Martin and Edith expresed no doubts. If I was subject to the influence of psychic phenomena, so too, were they. When the World War III message came they changed their minds, which was their privilege. Martin expressed concern about not wanting our movement to become known as a doomsday group or that it followed the leadership of a man who was claiming to get messages. I agreed with that concern although I continued to maintain confidence in Vern.

I had thought for some time that Martin was waiting for an opportunity to remove me from the presidency. My refusal to join in the condemnation of Vern Grimsley presented a suitable issue. Martin's letter to the readers (December 2, 1983) presented such a one-sided view about men who "hear voices" that I am compelled to mention certain alleged contacts. One was a message concerning the French translation, and the other: Approximately two months after Christy's death, Martin told me, ". . . There were messages before and after Christy's death. I am to lead the Foundation."

CHARGE I. B.: Thomas A. Kendall was defiant of the Board of Trustees, by his own admission deliberately telling two Foundation Staff Members of Vern Grimsley's alleged spirit communications about World War III without first consulting the Board of Trustees. Thomas A. Kendall said he acted without the Board's approval because he feared that the Board of Trustees would have stopped him from doing so, just as the Board of Trustees had in the French situation when Thomas A. Kendall attempted to force the admission of two staff members to a meeting whereat a report was to be made by the President and Vice-President of Urantia Brotherhood on their visit to France.

RESPONSE: Concerning the Word War II Message, by the time I called one of the staff men to tell him, the President and Vice-President and one committee chairman of the Brotherhood already know about it. The Trustees didn't make an issue of my call to Mike Painter until long after the fact.

As regards the information John Hales and Carolyn Kendall planned to share with the Trustees upon their return from France in May 1982 (NOTE: the news that Jacques Weiss had published his Concordex), it was already known by the French and would soon be communicated to the Executive Committee. It was hardly confidential.

CHARGE I. C.: Thomas A. Kendall has improperly attempted to involve the Staff in Foundation deliberations on sensitive policy matters, especially with respect to the French situation. In the latter instance, this had the effect of promising to drive a wedge between the Board of Trustees and the Staff, on whom the Trustees would have to depend for the carrying out of Foundation policies with which Thomas A. Kendall did not agree.

RESPONSE: The Trustees have questioned my desire to include the staff. There has been an unfortunate tendency of one of the Trustees to impede the flow of information to the staff and even to the other Trustees. I have felt that unless the information is confidential, the staff should hear things first-hand from us. They must handle many letters and telephone inquiries, so keeping them informed is essential It is difficult to understand how they could be used as a wedge within the Board, since they can't vote. They are intelligent, independent-thinking men and it would be impossible for me to use them in a divisive manner.

CHARGE I. D.: Thomas A. Kendall has exceeded the bounds of rational debate exhibiting an attitude of obstructionism and non-cooperation in various situation including the French, Spanish and, most recently, the Vern Grimsley situation.

RESPONSE: The charge that I have been obstructive concerning translations is incomprehensible. I was the first Trustee to recommend we begin examining our options to the creation of a new Spanish translation. I originated and fully supported the plan to reprint the French translation in one volume. I even signed the letter written by another Trustee announcing the reprint to the Executive Committee, a letter that upset them by its authoritarian tone. I have sometimes questioned the methods by which we do our work and have honestly tried to air my views.

CHARGE II: In the opinions of his fellow Trustees, Thomas A. Kendall has done or permitted acts or things which are inconsistent with or in degradation of the teachings of The Urantia Book for the following reasons:

CHARGE II. A.: Thomas A. Kendall has declared his belief in psychic phenomena before three of his fellow Trustees. Psychic phenomena are in degradation of the teaching of The Urantia Book insofar as the Book urges the function of evolutionary wisdom and rational judgment as amplified by one's own spiritual experience in solving the problems and challenges confronting one.

RESPONSE: For the Trustees to deny spirit contacts or to label them "psychic phenomena" in view of the messages alleged to have come to close associates in the past is inappropriate. To deny the possibility of contacts by Adjusters, midwayers or seraphim is to repudiate our own teachings. It is even more inconsistent for the Trustees to say that problems must be solved solely through the function of evolutionary wisdom and rational judgment. The question of how to deal with the French situation was solved through credence given to a message of November 5, 1980.

CHARGE II. B.: Thomas A. Kendall has acted in defiance of, or inconsistent with, the wishes of the Board of Trustees, a group to whom he owes the highest fiduciary duty. The conduct of Thomas A. Kendall has been inconsistent with the teachings of The Urantia Book which requires loyalty and faithfulness to one's fellows, especially when carrying out a trust of the highest magnitude.

RESPONSE: It is not blind loyalty born of coercion or fear that Trustees should demand of each other. Each should embody a loyalty to truth and integrity, such that they can disagree without impairing group function. Urantia Foundation is not an end in itself. Even The Urantia Book is not an end in itself. The Universal Father is the only true end, as the late Brotherhood President, Bill Sadler, observed. My human loyalties lie with those who are doing God's work -- a trust in the highest sense -- including Urantia Foundation, Urantia Brotherhood and Family of God Foundation, a group whose purpose is to proclaim new ideas about the Father to the world. As long as the Trustees tend to their assigned duties and do not interfere with those disseminating high spiritual truth, my loyalty remains with the Foundation.

The Foundation has created an artificial issue when it decrees that anyone who claims to receive messages, or anyone who believes them, is disloyal to the Foundation.

CHARGE III.: In the opinion of his fellow Trustees, Thomas A. Kendall has brough disrepute upon himself and upon Urantia Foundation for the following reasons:

CHARGE III. A.: By going to Clayton, California, and willfully being present at Vern Grimsley's October, 1983 meeting whereat Vern Grimsley proclaimed himself a reservist, a contact personality, Thomas A. Kendall did so in disregard of the benefit of guidance from his fellow Trustees and notwithstanding Thomas A. Kendall there disclaimed his acting on behalf of Urantia Foundaion, Thomas A. Kendall nevertheless brought disrepute upon himself and upon Urantia Foundaion by giving the impression that Urantia Foundation was somehow in belief or support of Vern Grimsley's claims.

RESPONSE: I have made it a practice never to engage in unilateral activity. I called each of the active Trustees before leaving for Clayton. NO ONE SAID NOT TO GO. Had they asked me not to go, I would not have gone. They had ample opportunity to give me guidance, therefore, it is untrue to state that "I acted in defiance of, or insonsistent with, the wishes of the Board of Trustees . . ."

CHARGE III. B.: By claiming belief in psychic phenomena, Thomas A. Kendall has brought disrepute upon himself and upon Urantia Foundation.

RESPONSE: The Trustees charge that I have brought disrepute upon myself and Urantia Foundation and that I have done things that were in degradation of the teachings of The Urantia Book. As a Trustee and as President of the Board, I have always endeavored to conduct my private life and my organizational behavior in such a manner as to bring honor and respect to the Board and to my fellow Trustees. In reviewing my actions and behavior of the past 21 years, I cannot think of a single instance where I might have degraded myself, the Foundation or the revelation.

What the Trustees have done to polarize the readership is incomprehensible. It is a strange thing for leaders of a religious movement to do. What about their fiduciary loyalty to the revelators who once commended unity of purpose as our goal? Instead, we now have purposeless disunity.

The Foundation approved the use of thousands of words of quoted material from The Urantia Book (in the Hoite Caston paper) as a tool to destroy the reputation of a member of the Brotherhood, a man who is also a teacher of truth about the Universal Father. This is a disgrace! Even with a disclaimer, this is a blunder. The Foundation has never before been an accomplice in an attack where such malicious intent is evident. It is an abuse of power.

CHARGE III. C.: Thomas A. Kendall by (a) his refusal to sign the December 2, 1983 letter concerning the Vern Grimsley matter and (b) his conduct in the surrounding circumstances of psychic phenomena, the claims of Vern Grimsley and the associated ensuing events, has brought disrepute upon Urantia Foundation.

RESPONSE: I refused to sign the letter of December 2, 1983 addressed to the readership because: 1) I was given no chance for input during the development of the first draft, 2) The letter was harsh, hardly a letter a religious group could be proud of, 3) There was no recognition of Vern's valuable help over the years, 4) The philosophy and tone clashed with the Brotherhood's letter--they refused to run our letter on their printing equipment.

I refused to sign the letter dismissing Vern as Special Representative. It was placed before me to sign without my input. He was given no hearing, nor were the Trustees interested in meeting with him. I could not in good conscience sign either letter.

CHARGE IV.: For the foregoing reasons, Thomas A. Kendall should be removed as a Trustee of Urantia Foundation.

Conclusion: I began the preparation of my responses to the charges with the idea that the Trustees might see the falsity of their charges and perhaps change their minds and reinstate me. I now think that very early they hardened their position, taking an adversarial stance. Thus, even though I was invited to contest my dismissal, it was clear from the tone and wording of the letter they had already decided the issue. The charges represent such distortions of facts I cannot understand how any of them--friends of long standing--could put their hands to such a document.

Every member of the Board should be able to think independently (not individualistically), express oneself responsibly and be able to share in the workload. There would be no purpose to having a Board of five people if only one individual were destined to make all the decisions and do all the work. The man who tries to carry the entire load is like a rope with a single strand. Only a rope with several strands of equal tensile strength can be trusted to carry the weight of a vitally important burden.

Attempts to forcibly stifle diversity will foster schism and disintegration. There is one individual on the Board who seemingly believes he alone has the vision and ability to lead the movement. He has a history of mistrusting the motives and abilities of others and of refusing to delegate to associates and subordinates.

The Board of Trustees is truly a body with a high purpose. You must be certain your decisions and policies reflect the lofty teachings of The Urantia Book. If your actions are inappropriate, it will ultimately be impossible to discharge your responsibilities, as you will be judged unworthy.

Thomas A. Kendall