Prophets, Seers, and Revelators: "Later, the incomparable Ralph Waldo Emerson rocked the very foundations of New England ecclesiastical orthodoxy when he said to the Divinity School at Harvard: 'It is my duty to say to you that the need was never greater [for] new revelation than now.' 'The doctrine of inspiration is lost. . . . Miracles, prophecy, . . . the holy life, exist as ancient history [only]. . . . Men have come to speak of . . . revelation as somewhat long ago given and done, as if God were dead. . . . It is the office of a true teacher,' he warned, 'to show us that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake.'10 In essence, Mr. Emerson was saying, 'If you persist in handing out stones when people ask for bread, they will eventually stop coming to the bakery.'11
Consider these stunning indictments from the towering figures of American history, to say nothing of the prayers of a Gloria Clements, and it highlights in bold relief the powerful message of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, especially to those of you who meet our missionaries. Prophets? Seers? Revelators? The events of 1820 and 1830, and the events of nearly two centuries that have followed, declare that revelations and those who receive them are not 'long ago given and done.'
In the very year Mr. Emerson gave his Divinity School address implicitly pleading for such, Elder John Taylor, a young English immigrant to this country, was called to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, a prophet, a seer, a revelator. In that calling Elder Taylor once said in sympathy with honest seekers of truth: 'Whoever heard of true religion without communication with God? To me the thing is the most absurd that the human mind could conceive of. '" Elder Jeffery R. Holland
Friday, October 08, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I just read a great article in Time magazine that deals specifically with the unfortunately termed "God gene" and how it affects an individual's spirituality. It is available on their website, but they charge. Geneticist Dean Hamer who discovered the gene was also interviewed by beliefnet (which is available for free at... http://www.beliefnet.com/story/154/story_15451.html).
I find the thought of a set of genes specifically developed to bring individuals together based on a feeling of spirituality fascinating. Not only would such a gene promote the development of tribal societies, based upon such feeling, but the eventual creation of religions and mythologies would be almost guaranteed.
Like evolution, however, I do not believe this necessarily takes God out of the picture. If a Supreme Being does exist, and that Supreme Being wants us to know about him/her despite the limitations of our knowledge, does it not make sense that that God would place a specific signature of spirituality into our very genetic make-up?
Are you saying you believe in evolution? Here's a website that makes a good argument against the theory. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm
With respect to the "God gene"
LDS theology teaches that the light of Christ is in all mankind from birth. This light is often called our conscience. It wouldn't surprise me if it had something to do with the very make-up of our bodies.
Ouch... that website hurt my brain. It’s exactly the kind of backward thinking creationism idiocy that prevents we agnostics from being able to accept religion. Evolution stands leaps and bounds ahead of creationism in the specific area that matters to individuals, like myself, who are unwilling to accept ideas on blind faith: evidence. If you really want me to, I could dispute this author's claims point for point, but it may be easier to visit the National Academy of Sciences website at http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/ where evolution is specifically explained for a modern audience.
Evolution occurs, period. The evidence is overwhelming. That said, I do not necessarily believe that the idea of a Supreme Being can or should be dismissed on that evidence alone. I could just as easily see our evolution as a means to an end for a "god." Why invent a spectacular seven day event that spits in the face of every known law of physics when an omnipotent being could just as easily work within the very laws he/she created?
Speaking of evolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html
A very interesting (and to me entertaining) exercise can be found here:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm
It tests the consistency of your beliefs concerning religion (no matter what belief system you have, or even if you're agnostic or atheist).
Post a Comment