Revelation And Knowledge

MON., APR. 11, 1983, 6:51 AM
MINNEAPOLIS, CURTIS HOTEL

In your presentation yesterday you offered an important challenge to your field… one, o son, that would include Me to a greater extent. Naturally I am pleased with this inclusion… and I hope your mind can cease its excess activity right now so that this Teaching can come through. This is the time for Me. You know this, but you’re letting a range of other thoughts hinder your reception. Get your priorities straight!

Naturally, I am pleased with this inclusion, but the term “revelation” may need to be replaced. Historically it is sound, and it does refer to ideas that are revealed rather than generated from effort, but there is, perhaps, too much of a “religious” sense to the word. Some would link it to John’s Revelation, and though that contains a good deal of truth it is only one kind of revelation… not that appropriate for your professional field.

If revelation were accepted as a legitimate way of knowing then you would not need to disguise the source of useful material that you receive from Me. There are many spirit guides, also, who are willing to share with some other members of your profession… in relation to health and also in relation to approaches to educating.

For instance, it will be difficult to find, through scientific investigation how spirit functions in the teaching/learning situation. Oh, you can ask people, and you can arrange some numbers to make responses seem legitimate, but you know that I can tell you more in a few of these meditative sessions than you could generate in hours of questionnaire or interview procedures. Of course, it is important to emphasize continually that using revelation is not “instead of” scientific answers, but as a complementary way of knowing.

You have made the overture in words, and a few people heard. You shall have this in print soon, and it shall be the basis for a gentle campaign to explain, justify, and advocate the legitimacy of revelation as a way of knowing for your field.

You shall emphasize again that some of your colleagues have knowledge and skill in statistical procedures, and their work generates facts and ideas that can become part of the accepted knowledge of the field. Yet others, who do not know or are not as skilled in these procedures, must have faith that these colleagues functioned properly and truly found what they reported. There also mut be faith in the technology involved… all in all, a fairly significant amount of faith. It is legitimate for scientific studies to be replicated and results compared. It also should be legitimate for ideas that I reveal to you be compared with those from scientific investigation.

The process that We have is (when you give it your full attention) as rigorous as any scientific process your colleagues would use. Verification is possible, because I am a continuing source. If there is something you don’t understand… ask, and I shall respond. I don’t come through as rapidly as a computer, but speed is a minor value when it comes to the generation of knowledge.