Early Secrecy in the Urantia Movement: Rationale and Levels of Access
From its inception, the Urantia movement adopted a structured approach to secrecy—not to hide its teachings from sincere seekers but to preserve and protect a profound and complex revelation that its early followers believed was of cosmic significance. The confidentiality measures were seen as essential to allow for a gradual and thoughtful assimilation of these teachings, safeguarding them against premature exposure, misinterpretation, or misuse.
Rationale Behind Secrecy
The founders of the movement believed that the revelatory material needed to be approached with both reverence and caution. The idea was that a sudden public release of such complex spiritual truths might lead to confusion, distortion, or even outright rejection. Instead, a controlled, tiered release of information was implemented to nurture a deep, reflective study among those deemed ready to handle it. This system was viewed as a protective measure rather than a tool of exclusion. It aimed to create a focused environment where a small, trusted group could rigorously study and internalize the teachings before they were disseminated more widely.
Levels of Access: The Contact Commission, the Forum, and the Seventy
The early leaders of the Urantia movement believed that the revelatory material was both profound and complex. To protect it from premature exposure or misinterpretation, they instituted a tiered system of confidentiality. This system was not meant to exclude sincere seekers but rather to ensure that the teachings could be studied and assimilated in a controlled and thoughtful manner. Over time, this approach gave rise to several key groups, each with its own level of access and responsibility.
The Contact Commission
At the highest level were the Contact Commissioners—individuals believed to be in direct communication with the revelatory sources. Their role was to receive and interpret guidance from what they regarded as celestial revelatories. Because this direct contact was considered especially sensitive, the activities and communications of the Contact Commission were shrouded in an even higher degree of secrecy. This ensured that any instructions received were handled with the utmost care and not subject to premature disclosure.
Of course, the greatest secret the Contact Commission held was all information about the human "contact personality". The only insight that is really available about this person is the following:
“The Adjuster of the human being through whom this communication is being made enjoys such a wide scope of activity chiefly because of this human’s almost complete indifference to any outward manifestations of the Adjuster’s inner presence; it is indeed fortunate that he remains consciously quite unconcerned about the entire procedure. He holds one of the highly experienced Adjusters of his day and generation, and yet his passive reaction to, and inactive concern toward, the phenomena associated with the presence in his mind of this versatile Adjuster is pronounced by the guardian of destiny to be a rare and fortuitous reaction….” 110:5.7 (1208.6)
"On many worlds, certain mortals of evolutionary origin, favorably constituted, are utilized for numerous purposes in connection with the advancement of cosmic truth. …the midway creatures function when they serve as efficient contact guardians of the human minds of the Urantia reserve corps of destiny at those times when the Adjuster is, in effect, detached from the personality during a season of contact with superhuman intelligences.” 114:7.9 (1258.1)
(This is believed to be the method by which the Urantia Papers revelations were materialized in the English language on Urantia.)
This passage clearly states the book's official position: the Urantia revelation was delivered through the specific technique of indirect celestial-human communication, employing midway creatures acting as intermediaries ("contact guardians") to interface directly with the mind of a specially selected mortal ("contact personality"). This human receiver, chosen from among evolutionary mortals possessing favorable mental and spiritual attributes, served as the psychic vehicle enabling the safe and precise transmission of superhuman knowledge into human language.
The Forum
In the early 1920s, Dr. William S. Sadler began assembling a small group of friends and patients in Chicago as a Sunday afternoon lecture salon-type event, and when Dr. Sandler mentioned a patient who later became known as the sleeping subject on February 11th, 1924. The discussion and inquiry related to this lecture led to a series of events resulting in the revelatory papers that would eventually form The Urantia Book. This group, later known as “the Forum,” was formalized in 1925 as a closed circle of approximately 30 members. Each member was required to take a strict oath of confidentiality, with an explicit pledge stating:
“We acknowledge our pledge of secrecy, renewing our promise not to discuss the Urantia revelations or their subject matter with anyone save active Forum members, and to take no notes...or make copies.”
This measure was seen as essential to preserving the integrity of the emerging revelation during its most formative stage. It allowed the early followers to develop a deep and personal understanding of the teachings without outside interference or the risk of distortion.
The Seventy and Other Groups
In addition to the Forum, another tier of involvement was established for those deemed ready for even deeper or more specialized engagement. Often referred to as “the Seventy,” this group had a different layer of access. Members of this tier received additional internal communications and detailed guidance intended to help shape the movement's early organizational framework. This multi-layered approach ensured that individuals were given access to sensitive material in accordance with their role, experience, and readiness to handle the deeper aspects of the revelation.
February 11, 1924
An interesting side note in the early days of the movement, Thursday, February 11, 1924, is documented (for example, in Clarence Bowman’s diaries and related accounts) as the first occasion when Dr. Sadler mentioned a patient who would later be known as the “sleeping subject” during a discussion group held at his home—a group that eventually evolved into what became known as the Forum.
Technically, the sleeping subject was likely first mentioned in an appendix of a book Dr. Sadler wrote called THE MIND AT MISCHIEF:
“The other exception has to do with a rather peculiar case of psychic phenomena, one which I find myself unable to classify, and which I would like very much to narrate more fully; I cannot do so here, however, because of a promise which I feel under obligation to keep sacredly. In other words, I have promised not to publish this case during the lifetime of the individual. I hope sometime to secure a modification of that promise and to be able to report this case more fully because of its interesting features. I was brought in contact with it, in the summer of 1911, and I have had it under my observation more or less ever since, having been present at probably 250 of the night sessions, many of which have been attended by a stenographer who made voluminous notes.”
Some commentary on this paragraph has suggested that the date might not be correct, but overall, it is recognized as the first mention of the “contact personality” explicitly referred to in The Urantia Book.
Separately, the date February 11 recurs in later apocryphal records. One widely noted handwritten note—found on the Instructions to the Contact Commissioners (circa 1951–1952) which makes mention that February 11th, 1935, demarking the date in which the overall welfare and direction of The Urantia Book is placed in the hands of the Seraphim of Progress for 500 years, that associates February 11 with the anniversary of what is referred to as Dr. Sadler’s “Thought Adjuster.” The precise authorship of this note remains unclear. There is no indication that this date means anything special, but many people have noted the coincidence, and it certainly is part of the lore that has developed. Also, on the same document, a handwritten note says that on “February 11th, 1924, Melchizedek Announced Revelation To Contact Commissioner.” It is also unclear what this means, which contributes to many questions as to any of its relevance.
Transitioning from Secrecy to Broader Engagement
As the movement grew and The Urantia Book was eventually published, the initial rigorous secrecy gave way to more open discussion—though the legacy of that confidentiality still informs debates within the community. For decades, the early internal communications remained closely guarded by insiders, their restricted status often lending them an air of mystery and even controversy. Over time, some of these materials were revealed or reconstructed through memoirs and archival research, providing valuable insights into how early leaders managed the balance between necessary secrecy and the eventual need for transparency.
In the sections that follow, we will delve deeper into how these confidential communications—including those later known as the “Publication Mandate”—were handled and how the terms “apocryphal” and “apocracy” emerged as shorthand for describing these secretive directives and the controversies surrounding them.
Directives and Restricted Communications
Alongside the text of The Urantia Book, the early leaders (the “Contact Commissioners”) received internal directives from the purported revelators – instructions about how and when to publish the book, how to form its human institutions and other guidance. These messages were not included in the published book and were treated as confidential. They were sometimes read aloud to the Forum or a select group (“the Seventy”) but were not circulated in print (THE PLAN FOR THE URANTIA BOOK REVELATION).
Notably, the revelators themselves insisted on secrecy: most messages carried a notation ordering that they be “destroyed by fire not later than the appearance of the Urantia Papers in print,” explicitly to prevent the appearance of a ‘Urantia Apocrypha’ after publication. In other words, the unseen authors did not want supplementary documents attaining scriptural status or causing confusion once the book was published.
The Contact Commissioners obeyed – only a few copies of these mandate letters were kept privately by Dr. Sadler and Emma Christensen, and those were ultimately destroyed in 1982 as instructed (Christensen had the last ones burned shortly before her death). This ensured that the only official revelation would be The Urantia Book itself, with no “extra” teachings floating around.
Despite this, the content of some mandates was shared orally and remembered. For example, one oft-cited “Publication Mandate” gave the timing for releasing The Urantia Book. In a 1951 message, a high celestial authority (speaking as the personal regent of the Planetary Prince) placed publication under his jurisdiction, stating: “I, and I alone, will direct the time of the publication of The Urantia Book.” The mandate went on to say that if no instruction was given by a specific date (January 1, 1955), the human trustees should publish on their own judgment.
In fact, no further message came by 1955, so the book was released that year. Other internal directives outlined the formation of the Urantia Foundation and Urantia Brotherhood (the book’s publishing trust and social fellowship, respectively) and cautioned the group to proceed slowly with outreach. Decades later, insiders revealed that the revelators even advised against aggressively publicizing or excerpting the book early on, urging the team to “make haste slowly.” In the early 1980s, one leader, Vern Grimsley, claimed to receive new celestial messages that reinforced these original instructions – for instance, “don’t split up the book” into parts and “the time has not yet come to advertise the book.” (Timeline of Historic Events in the Urantia Community) These points echoed the long-held private mandates and had been treated as guiding principles by the movement’s elders.
Handling and Suppression of “Apocryphal” Documents
By design, the pre-publication communications were tightly controlled and eventually suppressed. The Contact Commissioners shared elements of the revelators’ plan with trusted followers on a need-to-know basis but did not publish the actual messages. As noted, the physical copies were destroyed to avoid any splinter teachings. For ordinary Urantia believers, therefore, these mandates remained largely invisible for many years – essentially an internal lore known only to those in leadership. This policy succeeded in preventing a literal “Urantia apocrypha” (no additional texts were available to the public); however, it also meant that later generations had to rely on second-hand accounts and memoirs to learn that such instructions ever existed. (The printing plates used to print the original book were also destroyed based on similar logic to prevent them from becoming relics.)
Over time, fragments of these secret directives surfaced indirectly. For instance, after The Urantia Book came out in 1955, Dr. Sadler’s son prepared a summary titled “Timing of The Urantia Book” for the new Brotherhood’s leaders, drawing from “certain wise comments and advices” given by the revelators – but he presented it without citing the celestial source, effectively paraphrasing the mandates for public consumption. Only much later did historians and former insiders publish the original wording of some mandates from memory or preserved notes.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the mandate content was treated almost as an organizational secret. The Urantia Foundation (the custodian of the text) and the original Urantia Brotherhood adhered to these guidelines in practice – for example, they refrained from aggressive marketing, kept the text intact, and maintained a conservative, wait-and-see approach to spreading the book – but the average reader knew nothing about “mandates from on high.” This dynamic created some tension within the community. A few early members objected to the leadership’s secretive, top-down style. As early as the 1930s and ’40s, figures like Clyde Bedell and Harold Sherman grew uneasy about “autocratic trends in group management” and the lack of transparency (Historic Timeline for the Urantia Book Readership). Sherman, in particular, suspected that Sadler’s tight control (and refusal to incorporate certain Forum members’ suggestions) meant important decisions were being made behind closed doors under the pretext of “instructions from the celestials.” Such concerns foreshadowed later rifts.
Differing Faction Perspectives on the Secret Directives
After The Urantia Book’s publication, a rift emerged between the Urantia Foundation and the Urantia Brotherhood—later reconstituted as the Urantia Book Fellowship in 1989—centered on the book’s presentation to the world. Several underlying structural issues contributed, but mainly divergent marketing and advertising strategies primarily drove this conflict:
- The Urantia Foundation adopted a cautious, “slow-growth” approach. Its leaders regarded the revelation as a sacred, epochal document that required a controlled, measured rollout. They feared that excessive publicity could lead to misinterpretation, dilution of the message, or exploitation by opportunistic groups. This stance was consistent with early directives that emphasized secrecy and gradual internal study before broader exposure.
- In contrast, the Urantia Brotherhood favored a proactive, open method of dissemination. Its adherents argued that The Urantia Book needed wider advertising to reach a larger audience and fulfill its mission of uplifting global spirituality. They maintained that secret mandates and controlled internal processes should not limit the book’s public impact, viewing the Foundation’s restrictions as stifling the revelation’s potential.
These contrasting views on how actively the book should be marketed became a major flashpoint, eventually leading to the split between the two groups. Critics contended that the Foundation’s methods sidelined the transformative aspects of the revelation in favor of maintaining institutional control.
Conservative followers of the Foundation have tended to affirm the legitimacy of the mandates, often invoking them (at least privately) as authoritative guidance. The trustees—many of whom were direct disciples of the Contact Commissioners—felt duty-bound to follow the revelators’ blueprint precisely. Well into the 1990s, the Foundation resisted any abridgment of the book or new “revelations,” recalling that the original celestial advisors warned against splintering or supplementing the revelation. On controversial issues, Foundation leaders would sometimes implicitly cite the mandates (“our unseen friends’ guidance”) to justify a cautious, purist approach. An editor of one historical timeline noted that the Foundation developed a habit of “implying superhuman endorsement” for its policies—bolstering authority by claiming “the revelators want it this way.” For Foundation loyalists, preserving these mandates was a sacred trust; indeed, Emma Christensen, the last surviving contact member, passed down verbal counsel to select colleagues to ensure continuity.
More liberal or independent adherents, including many within the Brotherhood/Fellowship, have been more skeptical of these secret files. They view the mandates as historical footnotes—interesting but not on par with the revelation itself. Since the celestials chose not to publish these messages, many believe the mandates should not be treated as infallible or immutable directives. Some even dub them “the Urantia Apocrypha,” implying a quasi-legendary status.
Dr. Meredith Sprunger, a prominent Fellowship leader, critiqued what he termed “Urantia Book fundamentalism” for treating every decision of the original contact group as sacrosanct. He argued that over-reliance on secret mandates—unavailable for independent review—is akin to accepting extra-Biblical pronouncements, a stance that contradicts the book’s appeal to reason and personal experience. The Fellowship’s unofficial timeline notes that “many apocryphal stories” surround the origin of The Urantia Book and warns researchers not to accept any claim “for which no basis can be found outside of rumor and conjecture.” This skepticism reflects a preference for focusing on the text itself rather than on suppressed lore.
New factions emerging in the 1990s went even further in dismissing the old secrecy. The “Teaching Mission” group—believers claiming new communications with celestial teachers—openly rejected the Foundation’s assertion that no further revelation was authorized. They regarded the 1950s mandates as obsolete or misinterpreted; for example, if a Foundation trustee stated, “The revelators told us there will be no new epochal revelation for 1,000 years,” Teaching Mission adherents would counter that such a statement is not part of The Urantia Book. To them, the Spirit of Truth was still active, and no secret decree could block additional divine guidance.
In practice, they channeled new messages despite the Foundation’s disapproval, characterizing the old mandates as apocryphal—possibly authentic but not binding on spiritual progression. Some even suspected that human leaders exploited the mystique of secret instructions to stifle competition or change. For instance, when Vern Grimsley’s claimed celestial messages diverged into a dramatic world war prophecy in 1983, the Foundation’s inner circle swiftly condemned them, asserting that no genuine new directives would come from unauthorized sources. Critics noted that the same group had quietly tolerated Vern’s earlier messages only because they aligned with the established rules; once a message deviated from the mandate framework, it was deemed false. To outsiders, this episode illustrates how reliance on hidden guidance can become dogmatic, with approved revelations versus heretical ones determined by adherence to cherished mandates.
Historical Disclosure and Legacy of the Secret Files
Over time, much of what was once restricted has gradually come to light. As the original generation passed, former insiders published memoirs and documents that pulled back the curtain. For instance, in the 1990s, ex-Foundation trustee Carolyn Kendall compiled details of “the plan for the Urantia Book revelation,” sharing for the first time many specifics of the pre-publication instructions. The Harold Sherman diaries (kept by a Forum member in the 1940s) were also released, corroborating the existence of “Apocrypha papers” and private messages discussed within the Forum (The Urantia Diaries of Harold and Martha Sherman). What the Contact Commission once chose to withhold or destroy has thus been at least partially reconstructed through oral histories and archival research. We now know, for example, the exact wording of the Forum’s secrecy oath and key points of several mandates, as cited above.
The way these communications were handled has itself become part of Urantia movement history. Initially, they were tightly guarded and obediently suppressed (to the point of literal incineration). Later, knowledge of their existence was selectively passed on to new leaders in the 1960s–1980s, albeit behind closed doors. Finally, in the open climate after the 1989 split, previously “restricted” documents have been published or at least openly discussed in journals, websites, and conferences. Each faction has interpreted this legacy in line with its own philosophy.
The Urantia Foundation has generally downplayed the significance of the now-public mandates (preferring to emphasize that the Book stands alone), even as it continues to uphold many of the policies that the mandates recommended (such as preserving the text inviolate and maintaining organizational control). The Fellowship and independent readers, for their part, have integrated the information about the early mandates into a fuller understanding of Urantia history – useful context, but cautioning against giving these ghost documents too much weight. As one observer put it, the very secrecy of the early years inevitably produced “apocryphal stories” and ambiguities (Timeline of Historic Events in the Urantia Book Readership Community). Modern Urantia students are keenly aware of this and thus tend to demand transparency going forward.
In summary, the Urantia movement’s early communications under secrecy have traveled a trajectory from closely held “classified” guidance to hotly debated historical lore. The vow of secrecy bound the first believers to silence, and the directives from the revelators were initially treated as private, almost sacred instructions for the custodians. With time, however, these once-restricted documents have been variously invoked, disputed, or dismissed by different branches of the movement. The loyalists cite them as wise counsel that ensured the successful birth of the revelation; the skeptics consider them non-canonical – interesting, but not the final word. The tension between secrecy and openness that began in the Forum era has thus continued to shape the Urantia community’s culture. Each new generation must decide how much weight to give the movement’s “apocrypha” versus the published teachings. What’s clear is that the history of those secret directives – from their careful suppression to their eventual emergence – has profoundly influenced Urantia tradition, governance, and the perennial debate over continuing revelation. The handling of these documents is a fascinating study in how a spiritual movement balances fidelity to perceived divine instructions with the practical need for transparency and unity as it grows.
Sources: Historical accounts compiled by long-time Urantia Book readers and researchers, including first-hand Forum memoirs and fellowship archives, have documented the Forum’s secrecy pledge (Historic Timeline for the Urantia Book Readership) (The Urantia Chronicles: 4. The Forum | squarecircles.com), the revelators’ confidential mandates and their destruction (THE PLAN FOR THE URANTIA BOOK REVELATION) (THE PLAN FOR THE URANTIA BOOK REVELATION), and the later disclosure and debate surrounding these “apocryphal” materials (Timeline of Historic Events in the Urantia Book Readership Community) (Timeline of Historic Events in the Urantia Community). These citations provide a window into how different factions either revered or questioned the elusive communications that preceded The Urantia Book’s publication.