The revelators who gave us The Urantia Book were not free to improvise or extemporize when they called for human beings living on Urantia to establish a world government, or in any other context. Instead, the revelators had received strict instructions telling them what they must explain and must not reveal:
It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue. We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning. 0:0.2 (1.2) emphasis added
The sixteenth proscription of the mandate authorizing these narratives says: “If deemed wise, the existence of the Architects of the Master Universe and their associates may be disclosed, but their origin, nature, and destiny may not be fully revealed.” 31:9.2 (351.3) emphasis added
Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. … Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve. 101:4.2 (1109.3) emphasis added
The same period of one thousand years is also a prominent feature when a Melchizedek warns us about an extended process of “economic adjustments and social changes”:
Mechanical inventions and the dissemination of knowledge are modifying civilization; certain economic adjustments and social changes are imperative if cultural disaster is to be avoided. This new and oncoming social order will not settle down complacently for a millennium. The human race must become reconciled to a procession of changes, adjustments, and readjustments. Mankind is on the march toward a new and unrevealed planetary destiny. 99:1.1 (1086.4) emphasis added
These passages and many others enable us to understand that the challenges and achievements of an entire millennium were the net context that the Midwayer Commission envisioned when they launched their task of adapting, paraphrasing, and summarizing Jesus’ teachings at Urmia (the entirety of sections 3 through 6 of Paper 134).These analytical efforts of theirs sparked intense controversy:
When we, the midwayers, first prepared the summary of Jesus’ teachings at Urmia, there arose a disagreement between the seraphim of the churches and the seraphim of progress as to the wisdom of including these teachings in the Urantia Revelation. Conditions of the twentieth century, prevailing in both religion and human governments, are so different from those prevailing in Jesus’ day that it was indeed difficult to adapt the Master’s teachings at Urmia to the problems of the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men as these world functions are existent in the twentieth century. We were never able to formulate a statement of the Master’s teachings which was acceptable to both groups of these seraphim of planetary government. Finally, the Melchizedek chairman of the revelatory commission appointed a commission of three of our number to prepare our view of the Master’s Urmia teachings as adapted to twentieth-century religious and political conditions on Urantia. Accordingly, we three secondary midwayers completed such an adaptation of Jesus’ teachings, restating his pronouncements as we would apply them to present-day world conditions, and we now present these statements as they stand after having been edited by the Melchizedek chairman of the revelatory commission. 134:3.8 (1486.3) emphasis added
This wording highlights a frank and free exchange of views[1] that had arrayed the seraphim of the churches against the seraphim of progress, and it is quite possible that there were several such exchanges. It seems clear that the Melchizedek chairman of the revelatory commission still confronted sensitive and delicate tasks when he adjudicated and edited the compromise wording that the Midwayer Commission eventually prepared, even though the paragraph implies that the authors had already made an earnest effort to reconcile conflicting viewpoints and perceptions.
Colleagues, you are free to draw your own conclusions, but here are mine: (a) intense controversy; (b) a complicated and extended process in order to develop the wording that now appears in sections 3 through 6 of Paper 134; and (c) an implicit timeline of one thousand years that should enable humanity to carry out their recommendations that we establish a world government. As we seek to grasp all that, it seems useful to repeat a short statement excerpted above: “human wisdom must evolve” (101:4.2). We must also heed an explicit warning that an Archangel of Nebadon imparts in section 6 of Paper 81:
Man should be unafraid to experiment with the mechanisms of society. But always should these adventures in cultural adjustment be controlled by those who are fully conversant with the history of social evolution; and always should these innovators be counseled by the wisdom of those who have had practical experience in the domains of contemplated social or economic experiment. No great social or economic change should be attempted suddenly. Time is essential to all types of human adjustment — physical, social, or economic. 81:6.40 (911.5)
Since the extensive introductory remarks you have read up to now may have tried your patience, here are some of the explicit and emphatic statements about sovereignty and world government that the Melchizedek chairman of the revelatory commission preserved and retained when he edited the summary and paraphrased Jesus’ teachings at Urmia that the Midwayer Commission had submitted to him:
| A | War on Urantia will never end so long as nations cling to the illusive notions of unlimited national sovereignty. There are only two levels of relative sovereignty on an inhabited world: the spiritual free will of the individual mortal and the collective sovereignty of mankind as a whole. Between the level of the individual human being and the level of the total of mankind, all groupings and associations are relative, transitory, and of value only in so far as they enhance the welfare, well-being, and progress of the individual and the planetary grand total — man and mankind. 134:5.2 (1487.9) |
| B | Urantia will not enjoy lasting peace until the so-called sovereign nations intelligently and fully surrender their sovereign powers into the hands of the brotherhood of men — mankind government. 134:5.10 (1489.1) |
| C | Religion makes it spiritually possible to realize the brotherhood of men, but it will require mankind government to regulate the social, economic, and political problems associated with such a goal of human happiness and efficiency. 134:6.2 (1490.5) |
| D | The individual will enjoy far more liberty under world government. Today, the citizens of the great powers are taxed, regulated, and controlled almost oppressively, and much of this present interference with individual liberties will vanish when the national governments are willing to trustee their sovereignty as regards international affairs into the hands of global government. 134:6.10 (1491.4) |
From my perspective, excerpts A, B, and D are essentially statements of principles, whereas excerpt C includes practical implications that ought to exert a strong influence on how human beings respond to the fifth epochal revelation in this generation and for several succeeding centuries:
- Religion is not enough.
- The revelators did not give us the fifth epochal revelation just to provide spiritual inspiration to individuals, nor just to promote advanced approaches to religion.
- To the contrary, the revelators were also seeking to promote the progressive growth and development of society and civilization on our troubled planet Urantia, pursuant to the broad evolutionary paths that a Mighty Messenger explains in Paper 52, “Planetary Mortal Epochs.”
By implication, we must now ask ourselves how human beings living on Urantia can honor the revelators’ strenuous recommendation that we set aside long-standing traditions of national sovereignty and establish a world government instead. Yes, the most important issue is how, but that specific inquiry immediately entangles us in a conundrum that is equally intimidating and perhaps even more problematic: when?
I most certainly cannot answer these questions in ways that would be conclusive, definitive, and final, although it seems appropriate and fair to offer you my considered view that no one else currently living on Urantia can do that either. It is important for me to emphasize that I entirely agree with the goal that the Midwayer Commission has portrayed, and I am certain that human beings living on Urantia really will establish a world government at some suitable moment during the next one thousand years. On the other hand, we are far from ready to do this now. As a first approximation, I shall offer you my personal view that it will take at least 200 years for any such effort to make sense, but I must hasten to add that the actual interval may be considerably longer.
Obstacles and impediments
From my perspective, a world government is inconceivable as long as a substantial number of countries operate internally in ways that are tyrannical and dictatorial, thereby oppressing their citizens. Given these repulsive realities that tend to pervade quite a few regions of the world, we should seek to stimulate a patient and gradual campaign aimed at increasing the methods, practices, and procedures that enable citizens to influence the activities and decisions of government, and to take part in many of them thoughtfully and effectively.
This worldwide campaign should also endeavor to reinforce and strengthen the rule of law and the independent standing of judges, while promoting and achieving the adoption of safeguards that will effectively prevent arbitrary and abusive acts of government officials — including any measures that may provide inappropriate, disproportionate, and unfair benefits to oneself or to one’s political allies and supporters. In part, it will also be crucial to extinguish corruption, or at least to curtail it very substantially, while compelling those persons who exert authority in each country to respect the rights and interests of people who are not part of the power structure.
These goals are challenging and exceedingly difficult, but I am convinced that the evolution of government on our troubled planet Urantia must eventually create new realities that respect and reflect them. As a practical matter, we will never be able to move toward world government until all or almost all the countries of the world reflect the will of the people and operate in ways that are fair to everyone — regardless of gender, race, color, emotional affinities, nationality or ethnic origin, social or political opinions, and religious views or other spiritual or philosophic beliefs. In section 9 of Paper 70, a Melchizedek states:
Society cannot offer equal rights to all, but it can promise to administer the varying rights of each with fairness and equity. It is the business and duty of society to provide the child of nature with a fair and peaceful opportunity to pursue self-maintenance, participate in self-perpetuation, while at the same time enjoying some measure of self-gratification, the sum of all three constituting human happiness. 70:9.17 (794.12)
It took many millennia for governments operating on Urantia to acquire the perspectives that I have highlighted in the last few paragraphs, even if they just amount to options that many governments may decide to pursue and, if possible, carry out. This understanding leads us to another insightful paragraph that we have inherited from the revelators’ imaginative efforts to summarize and paraphrase Jesus’ teachings at Urmia:
The difficulty in the evolution of political sovereignty from the family to all mankind, lies in the inertia-resistance exhibited on all intervening levels. Families have, on occasion, defied their clan, while clans and tribes have often been subversive of the sovereignty of the territorial state. Each new and forward evolution of political sovereignty is (and has always been) embarrassed and hampered by the “scaffolding stages” of the previous developments in political organization. And this is true because human loyalties, once mobilized, are hard to change. The same loyalty which makes possible the evolution of the tribe, makes difficult the evolution of the supertribe — the territorial state. And the same loyalty (patriotism) which makes possible the evolution of the territorial state, vastly complicates the evolutionary development of the government of all mankind. 134:5.8 (1488.6)
The analysis and observations contained in this paragraph are not just reminiscences and reflections about what happened in past ages and centuries. Quite to the contrary, for the final sentence is an explicit commentary on world events and circumstances that pertain to our world today. For example, the United States is one of the powerful governments that is actively struggling against and contesting any expansion of international authority, especially in circumstances that may seem to be contrary to US interests or wishes, whether material, financial, or conceptual. Further, the principle of “national sovereignty” is deeply embedded in the world as it is, and the habits, practices, and customs that have pervaded diplomacy and international relations for approximately 400 years [2] will not be abolished and abandoned because of conceptual explanations about the merits of a world government — regardless of how persuasive and convincing we and other thoughtful inhabitants of Urantia may consider this wording to be.
Here I shall once again try your patience, in this case by telling you a story about a discussion of mine with a Dutch diplomat in or around the year 2000, while he and I were temporarily serving as delegates of our respective countries to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly.
Because of some conceptual association that I do not remember, my Dutch colleague decided to describe proceedings that had occurred in the Dutch Parliament in 1992, while it was discussing whether or not The Netherlands should ratify the Maastricht Treaty.[3] As you would expect, representatives of the Dutch government appeared before the Parliament in order to explain the treaty, whereupon one member of the Parliament asked the following question:
“How long do we keep our sovereignty?”
To which a spokesman for the Dutch government replied:
“As long as you think you have it.”
Please note the skillful use of pronouns. When the inquirer said “we,” he or she undoubtedly meant the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In contrast, the word “you” in the reply was ambiguous but can plausibly be interpreted as a reference to the members of the Dutch Parliament.
In effect, ratifying the Maastricht Treaty could be and was interpreted as an exercise of national sovereignty — the voluntary decision of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to operate in certain ways in association with other European countries that are much more influential and far more powerful. On the other hand, the question that a member of the Dutch Parliament asked can be interpreted as a bright red line meaning “thus far and no farther.” Therefore, it seems quite reasonable for us to conclude that the members of the Dutch Parliament were intent on maintaining and preserving their political authority over the people of The Netherlands in regard to purely internal matters.
Even though this is a relatively minor example, it can serve to symbolize the much more intense opposition among elected and appointed officials of approximately 200 nation-states to the idea of yielding any part of their political power and authority to the operations of a world government, especially if it may pertain to authority over war and peace. When we combine all these factors with the intense concerns about tyranny, oppression, and corruption that I described on previous pages of this essay, it is clear that we the people of Urantia are confronted with an extended process of experiment and adaptation, a process that we might even associate with the time-honored phrase “muddling through.”
Nonetheless, there appear to be a number of guidelines and principles that will be useful and productive as we proceed along the path. In effect, my main goal during the rest of this essay will be to identify and highlight these guidelines and principles, while drawing on crucial insights about the purposes and functions of government that the revelators have shared with us.
Limiting, channeling, and constraining power
When a Melchizedek summarizes humanity’s early experience of war, he implies that these factors were the origin of the long-standing political tradition whereby unlimited power was conferred upon a single person (e.g., an emperor, a king, a prince, or a president who implicitly exercises authority in ways that are arbitrary and unconstrained).
It has been hard for mankind to learn that neither peace nor war can be run by a debating society. The primitive “palavers” were seldom useful. The race early learned that an army commanded by a group of clan heads had no chance against a strong one-man army. War has always been a kingmaker.
At first the war chiefs were chosen only for military service, and they would relinquish some of their authority during peacetimes, when their duties were of a more social nature. But gradually they began to encroach upon the peace intervals, tending to continue to rule from one war on through to the next. They often saw to it that one war was not too long in following another. These early war lords were not fond of peace.70:5.5-6 (798.3-4)
Immediately after the section heading entitled, “The Character of Statehood,” a Melchizedek tells us:
The only sacred feature of any human government is the division of statehood into the three domains of executive, legislative, and judicial functions. The universe is administered in accordance with such a plan of segregation of functions and authority. 71:8.1 (806.14)
But procedural steps that simply establish the three branches are not sufficient by themselves. If the three branches do exist, but the executive branch is able to dominate the other two, then you have oppression and tyranny. This highly unfortunate but rather frequent outcome is one of the main reasons why the Melchizedek tells us that the concentration of power has been the great struggle in the evolution of government:
The great struggle in the evolution of government has concerned the concentration of power. The universe administrators have learned from experience that the evolutionary peoples on the inhabited worlds are best regulated by the representative type of civil government when there is maintained proper balance of power between the well-coordinated executive, legislative, and judicial branches. 70:12.1 (797.13)
If we examine the record of previous centuries in order to analyze and explain the evolution of government on Urantia, it is reasonable to note that the writings of the British philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) included ample references to the exercise of executive, legislative, and judicial functions. But the concept that these functions can and should be exercised separately is more closely associated with the writings of the French philosopher Montesquieu (1689–1755).
During the 18th century, these ideas of Montesquieu’s definitely influenced political developments in the colonial governments of the thirteen British colonies located on the Eastern seaboard of North America. Further, it is reasonable to describe them as the philosophic context for the subdivision of political authority and “checks and balances” that were embodied in the Constitution of the United States, as written and adopted during the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787.
With all due modesty, I am obliged to ask committed readers of The Urantia Book who live in other countries and who read this essay not to interpret the details that follow below as proof of my personal bias. To be sure, I was born and raised in the United States, and I have spent over fifty years of my life serving in various branches of my country’s federal government. To the contrary, however, I ask you to consider what follows as testimony of my strong conviction that these key features of the U.S. Constitution really do represent a notable and important effort to limit, channel, and constrain political power pursuant to, and in the spirit of, the Melchizedek’s remarks in Papers 70 and 71 cited above.
In the newspaper article called “Federalist No. 51” (February 6, 1788),[4] James Madison explained the underlying principles as follows:[5]
“In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
In the classic work Democracy in America (1835), the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) offered his own view of these matters, while emphasizing that the various subdivisions of government authority serve to preserve, protect, and enhance personal freedom:[6]
“There are two means of diminishing the force of authority in a nation.
The first is to weaken power in its very principle by removing from society the right or the ability to defend itself in certain cases: to weaken authority in this manner is in general what in Europe is called founding freedom.
There is a second means of diminishing the action of authority: this does not consist of stripping society of some of its rights, or paralyzing its efforts, but of dividing the use of its forces among several hands; of multiplying officials while allocating to each of them all the power he needs to do what he is destined to execute.”
In the United States, therefore, they did not claim that a man in a free country has the right to do everything; on the contrary, they imposed on him more varied social obligations than elsewhere; they did not have the idea of attacking the power of society in its principle and of contesting its rights; they limited themselves to dividing it in its exercise. They wanted in this manner to arrive at the point where authority is great and the official is small, so that society would continue to be well regulated and remain free.
A Melchizedek’s practical advice
The Melchizedek who wrote Papers 70 and 71 emphasizes that “Urantia mortals … should select their most competent and worthy fellows as chief executives. For representatives in the legislative branch they should elect only those who are qualified intellectually and morally to fulfill such sacred responsibilities” (70:12.5). In addition, he states:
The survival of democracy is dependent on successful representative government; and that is conditioned upon the practice of electing to public offices only those individuals who are technically trained, intellectually competent, socially loyal, and morally fit. Only by such provisions can government of the people, by the people, and for the people be preserved. 71:2.19 (802.13)
By calling attention to our own responsibilities, the Melchizedek is making it clear that words on paper, considered by themselves, do not suffice to protect and preserve democratic government as the revelators have counseled and recommended. Instead, that crucial outcome can be achieved only if citizens accept their personal responsibilities and proceed to carry them out conscientiously and courageously. An article that appeared in the British newsmagazine The Economist in mid-May implicitly highlighted this conclusion:[7]
“[I]f Americans believe that their constitution alone can safeguard the republic from a Caesar on the Potomac, then they are too sanguine. Preserving democracy depends today, as it always has, on the courage and convictions of countless people all across America — especially those charged with writing and upholding its laws. …
The lesson is that what sustains the American project, as with any democracy, is not black-letter laws but the values of citizens, judges and public servants.”
In fairness, it is important for us to bear in mind that the United States is certainly not the only democratic republic in which it is crucial for citizens to take an active interest in public affairs and to reflect thoughtfully and thoroughly when they cast their votes to elect government officials. Further, the need to improve the overall patterns and practices of government is far from the only serious defect in society and civilization that afflicts our troubled planet. In section 3 of Paper 52, a Mighty Messenger tells us that Urantia is “a full dispensation and more behind the average planetary schedule.”
On an average world the post-Adamic dispensation is an age of great invention, energy control, and mechanical development. … Much of the material progress of a world occurs during this time of the inauguration of the development of the physical sciences, just such an epoch as Urantia is now experiencing. Your world is a full dispensation and more behind the average planetary schedule. 52:3.6 (593.5)
We have now reached the end of my essay, and I hope I have highlighted interesting and perhaps intriguing factors that you will wish to consider seriously. Since I have already tried your patience more than once, I see no harm in repeating two principles that I consider extremely important:
— Religion is not enough.
— Human wisdom must evolve. 101:4.2 (1109.3)
NEAL WALDROP has studied The Urantia Book with concentration and energy ever since November 1973. He served as a Trustee of Urantia Foundation from 1989 to 1992 and currently holds the courtesy title of Trustee Emeritus. Since 2004 he has fostered an innovative initiative modeled on the work of the master seraphim, an altruistic project aimed at promoting the progressive growth and development of society and civilization on our troubled planet Urantia (www.globalendeavor.net).
[1] In the traditions of diplomacy, this ostensibly innocuous phrase is code for intense arguments — contentions that are often heated and sometimes confrontational.
[2] From political and diplomatic perspectives, the nation-state system that still prevails today is essentially a European invention. Many historians trace it to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), the treaty that concluded the Thirty Years War in Germany and thereby ended the entire period of the wars of religion in Western Europe. This appraisal, however, is relative and partial, for the customs and practices of diplomacy had been evolving for hundreds of years before that, and it would be reasonable to state that the innovations embodied in the Treaty of Westphalia amounted to adapting a general framework that mainly was preserved.
In relation to our own era, it is clear that the Charter of the United Nations (adopted on June 26, 1945) modified the nation-state system in ways that are significant and substantial, especially in regard to practices and customs aimed at maintaining international peace and security. On a more general level, we should consider the provisions of paragraph 1 in Article 2 of the Charter, which read as follows: “1. The Organization [i.e., the United Nations] is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”
Well, the phrase “sovereign equality” may be misleading, at least at first glance, for this does not amount to asserting that all nation-states are equal from any practical perspective — which is obviously not the case. On balance, it seems appropriate for us to interpret “sovereign equality” as a statement that all nation-states are equally entitled to sign and ratify (or otherwise adhere to) treaties and other international agreements, or to withdraw from them. Thus the idea of “sovereign equality” is essentially a matter of legal principles, not a description of the world as it stands today.
[3] An extremely important undertaking whereby the Western European countries that had formerly been called the European Community took action to found the European Union. The treaty was signed in 1992 in the Dutch city of Maastricht and became effective in 1993, creating a pathway that eventually made it possible for the members of the European Union to establish the Euro as a common currency. [Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty.]
[4] This text comes from to a series of newspaper articles written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, a series that is commonly called The Federalist or The Federalist Papers. In these articles, the authors sought to explain the provisions of the U.S. Constitution that had emerged from the convention that met in Philadelphia, in order to promote its adoption by the legislatures of at least nine of the original 13 states, as was required in order to bring the Constitution into effect and launch the new national government. (Please permit me to seize this opportunity to offer my own personal conviction that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were then serving as members of the reserve corps of destiny, at least temporarily. I should explain, however, that this conclusion is predominantly intuitive, for the revelators have not shared any information about the work of the reserve corps of destiny during the last few decades of the 18th Century.)
[5] These excerpts from “Federalist No. 51” are reproduced on page 151 of Documents of Revolution (Kindle locations 7342 through 7366). The Amazon website offers this compilation in three formats (hardcover, paperback, and Kindle).
[6] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume I (1835), Part One, Chapter 5. This excerpt appears on page 67 of the translation by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, as published by the University of Chicago Press in 2000.
[7] “Is America dictator-proof?” (The Economist, an article dated May 16, 2024 but published in the print edition for May 18).