I had a fairly good look around and to me it sort of looked like Christianity wrapped up in a New Age wrapper to attempt to attract new ager's back or those looking for deeper or more answers.  I wonder why the person who "channelled" the info refused to tell anyone who he is?
Joe

Must say I rather liked it. There's a very credible life of Christ in there.

My basic sense was that it's pitched at a level of more objective/dualistic understanding - the level of form if you like, and explains things in those terms.

If I recall correctly it doesn't really teach the level of non duality - as such it didn't really provide a path for personal development in terms that I could recognise. But maybe that was just me.

I've seen commentators who specialise in it rubbish ACIM, and vice versa. (but to a lesser degree).

This I think is a pity. It's possible to in my view to read a book like this with an open mind - staying aware that it may just be a view or at best one perspective and consequently is not to be taken as 'gospel'.

i.e. it can still prompt very useful perspectives that help in your own life and development - we can never anyway no matter what we read set aside our own discernement. It's not necessary in my view to accept a given text as 100% truth, or to reject it as 100% rubbish - there's lots of room for in between views.

Put another way - there's probably no text written by a human and subject to the limits of language that isn't limited - even if it is the real deal, and was transmitted from some sort of higher source via a good channel.

To be intelligible teaching has to be pitched at the level of the intended audience, and that implies a particular view and scope of understanding no matter how well it's written - never mind that language too imposes major limitations.

Higher teaching is basically unintelligible to an audience that's still at the level of intellect and form, that hasn't yet developed a higher intuitive unserstanding.

In the highest possible view it's only at the absolute or God level that we can hope encounter absolute truths, all else on the way to that is to varying degrees relatively true - for example true if a topic is viewed from one particular perspective, but perhaps not so if viewed from a higher level or alternate perspective.

Most for example regard power and force as necessary to survival in a dog eat dog world, and will quote all sorts of perspectives as to why this is true. They confuse sex with love, and reserve another form of quite egotistical love for family.

A higher view shows that this isn't actually true, that love is actually unconditional and not dependent on any give and take. That all are deserving of loving treatment, and that the dog eat dog view is based on multiple  misperceptions. Etc...

I am a new member, but am a little familiar with the URANTIA book...and I am wondering if anyone has a comparison with paper 47 on The Seven Mansion Worlds to anything experienced/found on any Focus location??  My understanding of the Mansion Worlds is that they are places for the development of one's spiritual being.