No…
2 Likes
She was on the cutting edge of technology in her time. Early adopter. First in the valley to have a phone. She would have had internet, commented on sites, had her own website, blogged, responded to detractors, and leveraged technology for her messages.
She would have been the first to have a satellite, cable, electronic devices. When she preached, she would have had the congregation take out their electronic devices and vote on the surveys on the screen.
She would include clips and video links in her sermons and her writings. Testimonies would be emails.
She would have jetted the planet.
Vacationed in Pitcarin.
She would have organized a health care blog and supported online ministries with her tithes.
3 Likes
I don’t disagree that she could have adopt technology and be the blogger and author, or even a YouTube producer. That wasn’t the point of the post thought.
Hey Harrpa, I believe she would be tweeting. Lots of tweets, “a la Trump!” … LOL
1 Like
Lots of “I was shown” tweets…
2 Likes
I stand by my post…
I can see that, but it still doesn’t address the point I was making about whether certain unquestionable nature of her gift as it was developed in the past, would be interpreted quite differently today.
Consider what would happen in a modern Methodist congregational setting, if a girl with a history of a severe head trauma would fall down and stopped breathing for 20-60 minutes. She’d be taken into ER. If she began to talk about the visions of God that she seen, there would be some psychiatric evaluation that would follow. If these episodes would repeat with certain frequency, there would be broader concern about he mental heath.
What wouldn’t likely happen is your local pastor sourcing that as information for validating his theological assumptions. I doubt there’s be any serious modern theologian in the world that would rush and record the content of these visions as some grand indicator of anything, especially if that girl had visions about the stuff you talked about yesterday that were supposed to serve as some validating mechanism by means of which God is communicating to people on Earth.
YOU wouldn’t believe it 
But, given over a 100 years of well-developed consolidated mythology surrounding this subject… belief is a much easier feat, especially if you are not presented with a broader degree of criticism to examine and decide.
Yeah… in care you need more evidence… there’s also this:
3 Likes
Hypergraphia aka Midnight Disease.
There is also a case of “Midnight Copya” that has been reported in the mid and late 1800’s… 
2 Likes
I think it’s all tied in, since temporal lobe epilepsy seems to affect personal episodic memory. Plus, there’s always an urge to fit into certain social paradigm of that day on top of trying to make sense of a very complex reality around us.
1 Like
I have read many articles, books, Ron Numbers, Graybill’s master’s thesis, Evangelica, Gladson, Bull and Lockhart, Walter Ray, The Verdict, Aagae Rendalson, Spectrum, Adventist Today, Veltman, et. al. including her own works.
1 Like
If that’s the response to the last paragraph, you seem to misunderstand it. I’m not assuming that you believe due some lack of research or awareness of these objections. I’m questioning whether she would have played the role she did, if her prophetic career began, let’s say, 10 years ago.
You’ve answered with some reference to all of the technology she’d adopt, but again, my point was predominantly about how her specific behavior would be perceived in a modern setting where fainting and lack of breathing for 15 minutes would land you in ER, and any subsequent description of grand visions of heaven would likely get you an epilepsy diagnosis, especially given certain severe head trauma history.
Again, no modern pastor would simply go on ignoring these conditions and then structured theology around validating nature of visions she would have. If they did, they wouldn’t be taken seriously.
3 Likes
Arkdrey, I am not responding to that point. I was responding to another idea generated in your post. No need to lecture. I was speaking solely to her being an early adopter of technology and how she might function as an ordained pastor in today’s technological climate. That was it.
3 Likes
I apologize if you find this aggravating, but I’m not trying to lecture you. You were replying to a post in which I was asking a specific question, so I don’t really think it’s wrong for me to assume that you were attempting to answer it.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.