Now we can understand what Sadler meant by “a third presentation.” The statements by Carolyn Kendall of the “first series” and “second series” provides a context for this “third presentation.” The third presentation was the corruptions by Caligastia.

Sadler does not state when this request by the “Revelatory Commission” appeared. From the sequence of events at 533, from Sadler’s statements, and from anecdotal accounts, as recounted in previous chapters, this rework of the 196 Papers took place after 1939, the year Lena died.

We can see how the Forum was brought into this corrupting activity. The “Clarification of Concepts” and the “Removal of Ambiguities” was the key to their participation. It covered several years, from 1939 until 1942. It also provided a means for Caligastia to slip in his corruptions under the guise of “Improvements” to the Revelation.

I shall now reexamine the significant changes which took place between the first and second printings.

PROBLEM #2: Errors I Had Assigned to Habit of Mind

These were mistakes that could easily have been made as Christy typed the manuscript due to her unconscious expectation of a word or phrase, but that word or phrase was different from her expectation. Or they could have been conscious changes because of her judgment that the word was in error. They were:

Some contradictions may have been due to lack of understanding by the Contact Commission. They were mistakes which an immortal being would not have made, unless that immortal being was a rebellious Prince.

They include:

On page 3^0:1.19 in the Foreword is a list of “perfection in all phases and forms of relativity . . .” In item #5 the word “other” was removed from “in all manifestations.”

This appears to have been removed for logical reasons. All manifestations cannot be “other” and must be absolute.

The statement on P.1849^168:5.1 that Lazarus remained at the Bethany home until the day of the crucifixion of Jesus is contradicted by other passages. “Day” was then changed to “week.”

The numbers given on pages 581 and 608 do not agree. The error seems to be a simple transcription mistake.

PROBLEM #4: The Scientific Mistakes

A most disturbing feature of the Papers is their scientific inaccuracies. It is one thing for divine revelators to hedge, and not reveal; it is quite another to state falsehoods. And just such falsehoods exist in the Papers.

Here I limit my discussion to those which were made in the text between the first and second printings. In a following chapter I shall discuss the more substantial scientific errors. The italics are from the discussion in my earlier Paper.

These important errors show that some hand was at work to pollute the Revelation.

Page 460: The density of a nearby sun was first given as about sixty thousand times that of our sun. After the first printing this was changed to forty thousand.

Page 477: Another mistake exists in the numbers assigned to the sizes and masses of atoms, electrons and protons.

P.477^42:6.7 - Each atom is a trifle over 1/100,000,000th of an inch in diameter, while an electron weighs a little less than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom, hydrogen. The positive proton, characteristic of the atomic nucleus, while it may be no larger than a negative electron, weighs from two to three thousand times more.

If the mass of matter should be magnified until that of an electron equaled one tenth of an ounce, then were size to be proportionately magnified, the volume of such an electron would become as large as that of the earth. If the volume of a proton, eighteen hundred times as heavy as an electron, should be magnified to the size of the head of a pin, then, in comparison, a pin’s head would attain a diameter equal to that of the earth’s orbit around the sun.

In all printings after the first, the word “less” was changed to “more” in the first paragraph, and the phrase “from two to three thousand times more” was changed to “almost two thousand times more.”

Obviously, these changes were more than spelling, typographical errors, or simple substitution.

28 - Alterations To Text ~425~

Two factors affect the changes. First, internal consistency, and second, modern scientific measurements. If the mass of a proton is “eighteen hundred times as heavy” as that of an electron, as stated in the second paragraph, it could not be “two to three thousand time more,” as stated in the first paragraph. This was a glaring contradiction. Current scientific estimates place the value at 1,836 .

The impression we might receive is that someone had a passing knowledge of the ratio of the masses and might have remembered it as “two to three thousand times more,” rather than the precise figure. But this would mean that the statement had human origin. If so, why would they permit a direct contradiction to exist in the next paragraph?

The additional error of “less” to “more” in the first paragraph accentuates the fact that the errors are solely in that paragraph, not in the following paragraph. Was the entire paragraph humanly created? Given the lack of human attention to the various errors, and the lack of persons familiar with atomic science among the Contact Commission, it seems hardly possible that a human mortal would have taken the time to concentrate on this detail.

The fact that this contradiction was removed between the first and second printing shows that it should have been evident at a careful reading of the text.

After all, the two paragraphs are immediately adjacent to one another. Why was it left there for the first printing? Did Sadler believe it was a divine statement, and hence he should not change it, regardless of the contradiction? He probably did not notice it, and trusted the source of the statement. Only after it was brought to his attention by later students did he decide to change it.

Did he have thoughts about when the error might have been inserted into the text? Did he remember such detail many years later?

Again, this is an example of simple changes in a single paragraph to create a contradiction. Perhaps the entire short paragraph was introduced by Caligastia to create the contradiction. Sadler then accepted it without critical examination.

The following remarks were made by Ken Glasziou, in his evaluation of scientific mistakes in the Papers:

~426~ The Birth of a Divine Revelation

Regardless if the statement on page 478 was meant to be “instantaneous” or “well-nigh instantaneous” it does not reflect material reality.

Virtually all of the above examples show some influence at work to “pollute” the text. These examples are all based on changes that Sadler made between the first and second printing. In following chapters I shall show mistakes that were never corrected.

From the evidence of the second printing we know Sadler had no compunctions about making changes to the text through his own authority. With his conscious and intelligent hand at play after 1955, these changes were introduced into the text, but they were not revealed to the general public. Not until the work of Merritt Horn and Kristen Maaherra was the public aware of those changes.

If Sadler had no compunction about making changes between printings, then why would he have compunctions about making changes to the original text? Perhaps he did. But if he trusted the malevolent influence which appeared after 1939, and the changes introduced by that “divine authority,” Sadler became accustomed to the idea of changes under that authority.

Furthermore, if, by chance, some of the additions to the text came from human sources, a specter raised by Matthew Block’s work, then purely human material, not originating through the hand of the true revelators, might have been incorporated into the text. This purely human material might have degraded Sadler’s respect for, at least, those portions of the text. Was that material also introduced by Caligastia?

This review leaves us with a crucial question. If Caligastia were to denigrate the Revelation how would he go about doing it?

We must consider several elements.

Certain passages stood out in the minds of Sadler and the Forum as exhibiting great truth. One of those was the descriptions of the apostles. Those descriptions were the straw that broke the camel’s back in convincing Sadler that the Papers had origin other than from the subconscious mind of the Sleeping Subject. If Caligastia were to subvert the text his chances of changing such outstanding passages were slim or none, without arousing suspicions. Therefore, he had to work in areas that were not so striking. With his powers he certainly knew which passages he could alter without arousing suspicion. Unfortunately, the task of mapping the Papers to determine those passages is complex and difficult. Perhaps it will never be done.

Another possible method for approaching the problem of suspect passages is to consider the different intellectual realms of the human mind. The potential influence of the Papers on human kind are rich in many areas: future theological developments, new insights into psychological understanding, philosophical speculations about the formation and structure of the universe, shaping orientations to

28 - Alterations To Text ~427~

new perspectives on material relationship, i.e., new attitudes about science, and so on. Many of us who have lived with the Revelation for a good number of years find ourselves reorienting our notions about creation, purpose, God, and destiny.

Therefore, it would be supremely easy for a celestial personality with the powers of Caligastia to slip in a word here and there that would bring drastic alteration in conceptual attitudes, and in human rumination. Here the problem is far more than simple contradictions. We are now in a problem which ranges beyond many human minds. Since we have no intellectual standards upon which to base our judgment, we are forced back to recognition of truth and spiritual value - and guidance from God in determining the validity of the Revelation passages.