Re: [RC] Prophetism then and now

[David R. Block]

Title: "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech

Part of the problem is that a lot of the prophets are looking for profit. Hence the dozens of books every year. David "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."—Neal Boortz   On 3/23/2012 10:16 AM, Chris Hahn wrote: Billy,   I think the crux of the problem is, as you said, sorting out the charlatans from the genuine article.  And the problem is exacerbated by the exaggerated damage done by the charlatans vs. the (possibly) humble demeanor of the true profit.   I, too, have been fascinated at this for years.  Unfortunately, profit-recognition tends to be subjectively in the eye of the beholder... may the best profit salesman win.  This is why unscrupulous charlatans can gain so much traction and truly inspired profits may go unnoticed.  I don’t know if there ever will be a wide spread solution to this short of a divine Revelation.   Chris         From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com [mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bil...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:41 PM To: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com Cc: bil...@aol.com Subject: Re: [RC] Prophetism then and now   Chris : Some years ago I carried out a major study of prophets in the religions of the world. Months and months of research, the topic fascinates me. There is incredible variety among prophets ( or would-be prophets ). It is a "revelation" ( pun intended ) to study all the forms that prophetism can take. So I really should better qualify my views.   You are quite right, of course, "God chooses" who will or won't be a prophet --or prophetess.  Guess what I was most trying to say is that there needs to be reliable criteria for who is and who isn't a prophet since there are a multitude of claimants in today's world and there have been far more charlatans in the past than the genuine article. Still, in the here-and-now there are a good number of well-meaning people who sincerely believe that they are called by God for this purpose but who really, from every indication, are stumbling in the dark and not doing others any real good.   In a way it is like the dispute among various Protestants about who is qualified to me a pastor. Some groups believe that no special learning is necessary and all that is required is a pure heart and inspiration. I simply cannot take that kind of view seriously.   To use a metaphor borrowed from Thessalonians, it isn't religion that we are part of, but a spiritual war for the souls of mankind. Another metaphor then is that we need to take part in a Crusade. But there is all the difference in the world between the actual Crusaders who took Jerusalem after years of hard fighting and the much later Children's Crusade that ended up with all the devoted Christian children killed or enslaved. Not the path we should take.   My view anyway Billy     ======================================   3/22/2012 8:21:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, c...@2chahn.com writes: Billy,   I agree with you about the LDS take on prophets, but I think you are setting too rigid an Old Testamentesqe standard for prophetism.   I think a prophet can be an uneducated amateur in religion.  God spoke to some improbable characters in the Old Testament.  If the spirit truly catches any give individual (and I agree that this is a relatively rare phenomenon), and if the individual can effectively communicate the message, then I would give that individual prophetic qualities.  I go with the Calvinist flow here that God makes the selections.   Your definition.... “A genuine prophet has to go through a helluva lot of bad stuff to be taken seriously, has to persevere, and has to not only have a powerful moral message, but an original message that contributes to knowledge.”   I am not sure that a prophet has to be taken seriously to be a prophet, but I do agree that the prophet should have a message that is moral and contributes to knowledge.    Chris         From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com [mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bil...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:58 PM To: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com Cc: bil...@aol.com Subject: [RC] Prophetism then and now   Ernie : Coming from a Baptist background, also with Lutheran and Buddhist experiences that have shaped my understanding,  and more could be added, my standards for what constitutes valid prophetism are "high bar," to use that metaphor.   My experience with Charismatic / Bible church prophetism in action is very limited and, from it, is essentially negative. By way of comparison, today's "church prophets" strike me as similar to a shop keeper who goes into politics, or a dentist, or a high school teacher. In either case it is something that one makes up as one goes along. And, allowing for special exceptions, I have extreme difficulty in accepting  any such thing. Amateur hour in politics has no more appeal than amateur hour in matters of faith , at least concerning such matters that effect whole congregations or whole populations.   Hence my criticisms of LDS doctrine that holds that all male heads of families are "prophets."  Sure they are ,    and being a lifelong rancher prepares one for being a prophet how ?  Or for that matter a lifelong banker or lifelong salesman. Same exact principle for Bible churches, etc.   My standard is Old Testament or, cie vous plait, Zoroastrian --in which genuine prophets , or prophetesses, are uncommon in any population.   A lot about Jeremiah I disagree with, and also parts of Amos and Isaiah 1, but these, to me are "real" prophets. As was Zarathushtra. In each case they took on the establishment of their day, they were not reluctant to challenge political power or religious authority.  They did not do so 100% of the time, but in all cases where it was needed.   Do Mormon "prophets" do any such thing ?  Do church "prophets" do any such thing ?  To ask the question is to answer it, of course not.   For me that disqualifies such people from any kind of authentic prophetism.   Not sure exactly how best to read the Apostle Paul on this issue. At times he seems to affirm the "Charismatic" position, yet taking a very dim view of glossolalia, but at other times his standards seem to be consistent with the views in the Hebrew Bible / OT. In any case, while I make allowances for exceptions, basically I am OT about this.   A genuine prophet has to go through a helluva lot of bad stuff to be taken seriously, has to persevere, and has to not only have a powerful moral message, but an original message that contributes to knowledge. Simply expressing inner spiritual feelings doesn't begin to cut it.   My view, anyway Billy             -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org