FIFTH EPOCHAL FELLOWSHIP
MEMORANDUM
TO: General Council Members cc: Gloriann Harris, John Hales
FROM: David Elders
Enclosed is the following information for your review and action:
SUBJ: See Below
May 10, 1990
From David Elders
1 . Our Response to Urantia Foundation's "Special Report." The Executive Committee discussed this at our recent meeting and agreed that our response to the readership should come from the General Council. Accordingly, we are requesting that you review the two possible responses discussed below and included in this packet and let John Hales at headquarters know which approach you favor, suggest an alternate approach, and/or make whatever comments you would like. (Please remember that the task of assembling a consensus response will be difficult, so unless you have significant problems with the wording used, it would help if your comments dealt with the spirit or principle of the response.) We need your responses and vote no later than May 21, 1990 – to John Hales by phone, letter or fax.
a. Option A: This is the minimal response and would include the single page letter, the past Trustees’ letter, the “Some Comments” statement, and would offer the additional information on request. Paragraph 3, on the Area Coordinators, would be omitted and some minor changes indicating that we have prepared some brief commentary would be made so that the letter fits this option.
For your information, the Executive Committee generally approved the approach represented by Option A. Option B is offered since the office staff, who because of calls and letters probably have the best sense of reaction in the field, feel strongly that it is important to give some level of commentary in response to the Foundation’s statements for the many readers in the field whose first knowledge of this entire issue came in the form of the Foundation’s “Special Report.” As you can see, both options include the offer of a packet of personal commentaries from those who have had long and direct experience with these issues (this packet might include letters from Duane Faw, Carolyn Kendall, Bill Hales, Helena Sprague, Frank Sgaraglino, Gloriann Harris, Paul Snider’s 1974 letter to the General Council, Mike Painter’s and Scott Forsythe’s resignation letters, etc.)
2. Quin Frazer’s Response to Henry Kleeman’s letter Regarding the Successor-in Interest to Urantia Brotherhood. Our attorney, Henry Kleeman, will be preparing a letter to us expressing the points of illogic in the Foundation Letter. With this in hand, we will have the basis to make a decision regarding the next steps we will take. This explanatory letter will be forwarded to you as soon as possible.
3. Duane Faw’s Commentary Response to the Trustees on their “Special Report.” This is for your information and will shed light on several mis-statements made in the Report. (This is an example of what would be included in the packet of information sent on request.)
4. Tenth Printing Dust Jacket Revision and New Insert. Urantia Foundation has just completed the tenth printing of the Urantia Book, has changed the dust jacket, and has rewritten the insert included with each book. Copies are enclosed for your information and review.
Thank You.
PROPOSED RESPONSE TO FOUNDATION “SPECIAL REPORT”
Dear Reader of The Urantia Book:
You may have recently received a thick “Special Report” from Urantia Foundation, offering justifications for their recent actions against our organization, formerly called Urantia Brotherhood.
In our opinion, the document constitutes a wholesale distortion of facts and truth, deliberately designed to confuse those personally unacquainted with the events of the past few years.
For example, the report states that the Trustees objected to the Area Coordinator Program developed over several years by the Brotherhood to facilitate study groups activity in the field. This is surprising in that the Foundation unanimously supported it and a letter congratulating new Area Coordinators was signed by the Trustees. Further, the current Foundation president personally agreed with both the program itself and the precise wording of materials used to facilitate its implementation; another Trustee spoke at the Los Angeles and Chicago Area Coordinator training seminars in praise of the program; and a third current Trustee was appointed an Area Coordinator at the program’s inception and served until late in 1989. (Neither of the two newest Trustees were appointed during the development and/or implementation of the Area Coordinator Program.)
However satisfying it might be to similarly respond in detail to each of the allegations made by the Trustees in this "Special Report," we feel that such a further expenditure of time, energy, and resources would detract from the more important work of helping to bring the fifth epochal revelation to the peoples of our world. The statement enclosed, signed by all but one of Urantia Foundation's living ex‑Trustees whose service totals 73 years and includes two who served consecutively as Urantia Foundation President from establishment of the Trust in 1950 until 1983, is sufficient response..
We are much encouraged by the events of the last several months. Despite the confusion and pain of separation, we believe that we have been given an opportunity to share in some way with Jesus' experience 2,000 years ago. Like him, we as a group are now called upon to bring these teachings to our planetary brothers and sisters based upon the way we live our lives, our spiritual fragrance, and our wholehearted commitment to the values and principles expressed as new revelation. Like him, we no longer have official "Pharisaical" sanction, have no former standing, are not "licensed." It is truly by the spirit of the law we now must live, letting others uphold its letter. He proved that a simple carpenter, without the sanction of the "ruling religious group in power," without a license, could transform an entire world. Our challenge is similar in that it will be by our changed lives, our dedication, and the unity of spirit in our reader community that we will have on the peoples of the world. Identification with words and symbols are simply not sufficient, in themselves to transform ourselves and others; it is only by identification with living truth that this work will take , place. our newfound "unlettered" humility is a powerful beginning to this process. Regardless of Urantia Foundation's recent. actions, we hope and pray that they accomplish the worthy material tasks their founders set before them. And, we enlist your support in furthering the high purposes which have brought us together, to help build the spiritual kingdom on earth in faithfulness to the Master who called us 2,000 years ago and in response to the gift of the fifth epochal revelation to our planet, Urantia.
In fellowship,
The Members of the General Council of Fifth Epochal Fellowship
P.S. Should you desire a packet of commentaries on this report written by individuals who have long and direct personal experience in the issues at hand, it is available by contacting headquarters.
SOME COMMENTS ON Urantia FOUNDATION'S 'SPECIAL REPORT'
Draft 5/10/90
The following are a few summary statements for the purpose of clarifying our point of view concerning the essential issues raised in the Foundation's attack upon us.
First, nothing we have done in any way jeopardizes the Foundation's ability to carry out major tasks, such as printing the book, protecting the copyright and creating translations. In fact, we have repeatedly assisted them in these legitimate functions with finances, manpower, and moral support.
Second, the Foundation implies that because it came into existence first and had a responsibility to disseminate the teachings, it created the Brotherhood as a subsidiary to perform this function. We know that both organizations were envisioned as separate but equal in the minds of the early leaders and the Revelatory Commission and that both organizations were designed and named in the late 1930's, before either organization had been formally established. To claim otherwise is a distortion on the part of the current Trustees. The attached statement signed by all but one of the former living Trustees and the fact that there is neither mention of the Foundation's overcontrol of the Fellowship in the Foundation's Declaration of Trust nor mention of any subservient role to the Foundation by the Fellowship in its Constitution, support our point of view.
Third, the attack upon the Area Coordinator Program is surprising in that the Foundation unanimously supported it, a letter congratulating new ACs was signed by the Trustees, a current Trustee ‑participated in two of the AC training seminars, and another current Trustee served as an AC. Thus, only the two newest Trustees had not fully participated in the program. The implication that the AC Program was designed to be a political tool to control readers and study groups is simply untrue. Paid opinions from lawyers commenting on future possible abuses by ACs represent an unfortunate attempt to discredit a program designed for unselfish service to readers and study groups by legal, secular speculation. What makes a non‑reading, paid attorney's opinion about our own programs more valid than the readership's?
Fourth, the implication that the Fellowship doesn't follow proper procedures documented by one alleged instance is to exaggerate to a distorted degree. The Judicial Committee did not change the Removal Amendment to the By‑laws of the Constitution; that is the General Council's domain. The Judicial Committee simply recommended the change. The issue was fully debated by the Council following proper procedure. Isn't it curious that all the time and $50,000 to $100,000 spent by the Foundation to reverse that decision was at the instigation of a Trustee who was a member of the General Council when the debate occurred and whose point of view was outvoted by the Council?
Fifth, the signing of the licensing agreements between the Foundation and the Fellowship and its Societies started in the early 1970's. This was not part of the relationship between the Foundation and Fellowship as originally envisioned, but at the time, the Fellowship signed them assuming a spirit of mutual cooperation and respect for each other's autonomy would prevail. What transpired was a growing tendency on the part of the Foundation to justify total control over the Fellowship under the guise of the licensing agreement. Now the Foundation believes it has a contractual agreement that supports its misinterpretation that the Fellowship is its subsidiary. Our efforts today have the purpose of trying to restore the relationship to its original intent.
To continue as we were, allowing the Foundation to use or abuse the licensing agreements as a means of complete control over the Fellowship, would be an abrogation of our responsibility to insure our integrity as an autonomous organization and be true to the clear view of the human and superhuman founders that our organizations best serve the functional needs of the revelation by a separate but equal partnership.
Sixth, whether or not the Foundation is adhering to the letter of the law in providing the least possible amount of financial information, we believe there is a greater issue of accountability to the readership. In deciding to ask the Foundation to raise funds for themselves, we were simply trying to get them to address the greater issue. Obviously their answer is that they do not wish to see the greater issue. Don't you, as a donor, want to know if your donation is being used for situations such as described in number four?
Seventh, the events leading to the formation of a Society in Finland were complex and were contributory to the surfacing of the long‑standing interrelationship problems between the Fellowship and the Foundation. When the Fellowship president communicated concern to the Foundation president about the ethics of manipulating the Society chartering process in Finland, the Foundation president terminated all further personal communication. (it is with this background that the Fellowship president's admittedly ill‑advised, personal communication with members of the Finnish Society Governing Board took place, for which unfortunate communication a full apology was given.) Since this termination of communication virtually eliminated proper interaction between the two organizations, the Fellowship president confidentially notified the Trustees in writing of the problem, to which they responded by establishing an ad hoc committee to reorganize the Board of Trustees. When that process ultimately failed and the three Trustees resigned, the Executive Committee met and acted by stating their concerns for review by the General Council (see the July 11, 1990 letter to the Council). The General Council of the Fellowship then met and passed several resolutions which the Trustees later claimed caused their response of and eviction. Then, and only then, was a report sent out and only to the membership of the former Urantia Brotherhood. (Notwithstanding Foundation claims to the contrary, the Licensing Agreement obviously did not prohibit communication between the members of the licensed organization.) Though the members of the General Council decided not to disrupt the general readership of The Urantia Book with this organizational problem, Urantia Foundation, both in November, 1989 and now in April, 1990, did bring this issue to the entire readership community, actions which have caused confusion, demoralization, and division .
Eighth, the implication that the Fellowship is now an irresponsible organization that has abandoned the person‑to‑person spread of the teachings as the keystone of our methods for dissemination is another distortion. It was the Fellowship, not the Foundation, which prepared the lengthy "Statement on Publicity and Dissemination" that has served as our main guideline on this issue. Slow growth can be used to justify fear of attempts to share the book. We do not have a preconceived idea of the evolutionary rate of growth, so we prefer to say evolutionary growth rather than slow. Rather, we face each issue and trust that the group wisdom of 36 Councilors and the input of our membership will guide us to the right decision. How is it that the wisdom of five Trustees is supposed to be superior to that of 36 Councilors and the input of the membership? Evolutionary growth, proper democratic, group procedure, and adherence to the organizational structure developed by the founders under the supervision of the Revelatory Commission have always been our operating strategies and we have not changed them; and we applaud the Foundation's attempt to adopt them as their “new" watchwords.
Ninth, the Foundation implies that the leadership of the Fellowship is power‑hungry. As context, it might help to clarify the structure of the two organizations. The Foundation is governed by five Trustees who serve for life. They are appointed by other Trustees and not elected. By their own admission, they do not see themselves as accountable to anyone, including the readership who are the beneficiaries of the Foundation's Declaration of Trust. The Fellowship's governing body is the 36‑member General Council who are elected by Society delegates. The Council then elects the Executive Committee to three‑year terms. if the Fellowship governing bodies were truly power‑hungry, they would never have taken such a difficult course for fear of not being re‑elected. The Fellowship has only moral persuasion to affect the actions of the Foundation. The Foundation, by means of the previously existing Licensing Agreement, used a contractual device to exert their influence (power) over the Fellowship. Is the potential for abuse of power more likely in a democratic organization like the Fellowship where a troublesome person vacates (or can be removed from) an office though the elective process, or in an autocratic, self‑appointed body like the Foundation'.
Finally, the Foundation implies that the Fellowship is entirely to blame, that its actions are analogous to rebellion, and that it no longer exists. In our view, the situation was precipitated by the unwarranted and organizationally unjustified desire for complete control of the Fellowship by the Foundation. To cast this disagreement as rebellion and the Foundation as representing the planetary government is to fall prey to intolerance and the delusion of the "chosen person" attitude that The Urantia Book warns us about as the most dangerous of all human traits. We are alive, we do exist, and we plan to continue to carry out our purposes in a better way than ever. Our primary methods are still 'the person‑to‑person spread of the teachings and the building and supporting of study groups and Societies around the world. We wish the Foundation no harm and will continue to support its legitimate purposes. It is disappointing that instead of recognizing the good will the Fellowship has created over these many years and offering to support our legitimate purposes, the Foundation has attacked us and is trying to form a new organization under their control to replace us, actions which have caused confusion and which seek to splinter the unity of our reader community.