Miriam was a prophet, sent by God above
To save his people Israel by the power of his love
When they listed prophets, she was number two
Thus a great model, both for me and you.
[Chorus]
In the Old Testament lists of prophets, Miriam came in second to only Moses. But, she, Deborah and Huldah, the three major female prophets in the Old Testament were all insiders.
From Wikipedia, talking about Miriam “Miriam[1] was the daughter of Amram, the leader of the Israelites in ancient Egypt, and of Yocheved, who was so righteous she was exempt from the curse of Eve.[2] Both Amram and Yocheved were from leading families of the illustrious Tribe of Levi.[3] As such, Miriam was also the sister of Aaron and Moses. The Torah refers to her as “Miriam the Prophetess”[4] and the Talmud[5]names her as one of the seven major female prophets of Israel. ”
Deborah judged Israel as the chief judge for 40 years. She was also listed in the Talmud as a major female prophet of Israel.
Huldah not only was approached by a group of religious authorities to validate whether or not the copy of the scriptures was correct, she overlapped other prophets, such as Jeremiah, and had precedence over them in having the final word.
I bring this up because there is a meme going around that only outsiders can be legitimate prophets. Thus “yes” to Elijah, but “no” to Elisha. “Yes” to Jeremiah (the outsider’s outsider) but “no” to Huldah.
In fact, the meme says “no” to every female prophet we have in the Old Testament. It is really a subtext for denying the authority and ministry of female prophets.
So, what do you think?
- Should we reject Miriam, Deborah and Huldah as prophets because they were insiders?
- Is it distinctive that all female prophets were insiders, or are the numbers too few for that to have any meaning as a common feature?
- Is the meme correct? Should we really reject Isaiah and other insiders who were also prophets?
All images are from the Wikipedia Commons Images.
Wheat & Tares 
Stephen,
No, I do not think we should reject them because they were insiders and I do not think the meme is correct. Maybe the reason we know of the three you listed was because they were insiders. We probably do not know of the ones which were outsiders because they were rejected and the insiders did not take the time to record anything or if it was recorded did not ever think it worth preserving.
Without any data to back it up, I think there were many, many more prophets, male and female (especially female) than we have records for, more often insiders than outsiders. The meme is just an excuse to decide which prophets we want to ignore to prove we are right, much like the division of male and female Prophets (which is worse than the inside/outside distinction).
Follow whatever Prophets from wherever and however they come, relying on your own connection to God to confirm that what they say applies to you.
Mark —that is an excellent insight.
Frank—that is something that makes sense.
Section 25:7 Emma is to be ordained to expound scriptures and exhort the church according to how the spirit gives it to her.
Exhorting the church and expounding scriptures by the spirit… what does that sound like to you?
The LDS concept of prophet does not equal the concept in scripture.
I think it fits one of the uses. Elisha and the school of the prophets, Moses or Deborah are all LDS style prophets.
The same for Peter on the New Testament.
Though Samuel or other Book of Mormon prophets often don’t fit that mold.
Lets give some recognition to Abish, a Lamanite and servant to the Queen in Alma 19.
what i find interesting is how women are excluded from priesthood ordination in these latter days. I would have thought that was a way of excluding women from “insider” prophet status.
But as you point out, women prophets in Old Testament times were insiders…Do you think this simply means, as Cody wrote, that it’s not a good idea to try to match/compare Old Testament notions of Prophets with latter-day notions of the same? (And if so, does this raise questions about the church having the same organization that existed in the past?)
Stephen, I disagree. Moses and Deborah exhibited prophetic gifts prior to their leadership of an organization. They were prophets first, organizers/leaders second. They would be more akin to Joseph Smith than any of his successors.
With Peter, the concept of a cohesive 1st century church under the direction of Peter is a fiction not born out by the evidence.
The LDS Church has institutionalized the concept of a prophet; so instead of the requirement of the prophetic gift, the requirement is ecclesiastical endorsement, priesthood, and institutional position for someone to be a prophet, which is why we have no modern Deborahs.
Cody—I wouldn’t dismiss either the Book of Acts or the Roman Catholic Church quite so quickly.
So the whole insider/outsider concept bugs me. Are we dealing with someone with recognized institutional authority? Or do they just mean someone from that area? Just because someone’s opinion is valued doesn’t necessarily give them religious institutional authority. Deborah was a prophetess, yes, but she was also a political leader (judge). So she was a political insider, but not necessarily someone who had any religious *institutional* position (as in, she wasn’t performing sacrifices). I don’t understand why Elisha is considered an insider other than the fact that he was from the Northern Kingdom rather than coming from outside the Northern Kingdom. Is it because he was tutored by Elijah, and prophets tutored by others aren’t legitimate in spite of performing the same miracles? The only reason we see Samuel the Lamanite as an outsider is because he wasn’t from the same culture. We have no idea what his institutional credibility was. Does that mean he ceased to be a prophet once he went back among the Lamanite people, because he wasn’t an outsider anymore? What about Nephi of the same time period? He had clear institutional authority, he preached both outside his home region as well as inside, *and* he gave prophecies and performed miracles even in his home region. By all accounts he was an insider culturally and institutionally, yet he clearly displayed prophetic abilities.
I haven’t seen the meme, but I feel it is a weak argument whether you consider insider status based on culture, religious institution, or politics. Our institutional concept of prophet as priesthood office today is most certainly narrower than the designation of prophet in the scriptures, but suggesting there were *no* prophets with religious institutional authority in the scriptures is a mistake.
Stephen, do you mind expounding on that?
The Book of [the] Acts [of the Apostles] is the story of how the Apostles formed and nurtured the early church. Part of that is Peter’s ascendence and leadership, which is a clear theme of that book of the Bible. The Catholic Church, with Clement and other bishops of Rome and their histories, do have a good record of Peter as a leader (debateable whether or not he was the true head of the Church or not, but the Catholic take on it is very clear and has a lot of documentation).
” the concept of a cohesive 1st century church under the direction of Peter is a fiction not born out by the evidence” disagrees with the concept of a central Church (centered at Jerusalem at first) that attempted to bring together the scattered disciples (e.g. those who when asked if they had received the Holy Ghost stated that they did not know if there was even a Holy Ghost).
As for the Catholic position, nicely summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter I think that calling it a “fiction not born out by the evidence” is harsh, in terms of how it shuffles both the Catholic and Orthodox Church traditions off the board as “fiction.” E.g. “He is traditionally counted as the first Bishop of Rome—or pope—and also by Eastern Christian tradition as the first Patriarch of Antioch. The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and as the founder of the Church of Antioch and the Roman Church,[2] but differ in their attitudes regarding the authority of his present-day successors.”
To quote from the Wiki again:
“Peter is always listed first among the Twelve Apostles in the gospels[28] and in the Book of Acts (Acts 1:13). He is also frequently mentioned in the gospels as forming with James the Elder and John a special group within the Twelve Apostles, present at incidents at which the others were not present, such as at the Transfiguration of Jesus,[29] at the raising of Jairus’ daughter[30] and at the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.[31] Peter often confesses his faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
Peter is often depicted in the gospels as spokesman of all the Apostles.[32] Catholics refer to him as chief of the Apostles,[33] as do the Eastern Orthodox[34] and the Oriental Orthodox.[35][36] In Coptic Orthodox Church liturgy, he is once referred to as “prominent” or “head” among the Apostles, a title shared with Paul in the text (The Fraction of Fast and Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria). Some, including the Orthodox Churches, believe this is not the same as saying that the other Apostles were under Peter’s orders. In contrast, Jewish Christians are said to have argued that James the Just was the leader of the group.[37] Some argue James the Just was bishop of Jerusalem whilst Peter was bishop of Rome and that this position at times gave James privilege in some (but not all) situations. The early Church historian Eusebius (c. AD 325) records Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 190) as saying,
“For they say that Peter and James (the Greater) and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”[38]
Peter was considered along with James the Just and John the Apostle as pillars of the Church (Galatians 2:9). Paul affirms that Peter had the special charge of being apostle to the Jews, just as he, Paul, was apostle to the Gentiles.”
Also:
“Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in the 2nd century that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the Church in Rome and had appointed Linus as succeeding bishop.[65]
Clement of Alexandria states that “Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome. (A.D. 190)”[66]”
Now there are other positions and traditions and interpretations (the Wiki is quite long, but hits a lot of them). But it is not without any evidence or support. That said, much of the support is “consistent with” rather than “requires only one interpretation” but that is true of most historical support.
Mary Ann, you make some very good points. “I don’t understand why Elisha is considered an insider other than the fact that he was from the Northern Kingdom rather than coming from outside the Northern Kingdom. Is it because he was tutored by Elijah”
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_kings/2-3.htm and similar citations discuss the guild of prophets that arose after Elijah’s core ministry and that placed themselves as beneath Elisha. That makes him an insider as to the religious hierarchy.
So what’s “insider” in today’s world? Top 15? All General Authorities? Is Sister Okazaki, who I would argue was one of the greatest Mormon prophets, an insider or an outsider? Eliza R. Snow? Others who may have held some sort of leadership calling in the church but never served as one of the top leaders?
Interesting question Tim. I’d say Eliza R. Snow had quite a bit of organization power (officially and as a wife of BY). I adore Chieko Okazaki as well, but by her own admission she wasn’t part of the inner decision making ring (as witnessed by her comments about the family proc).
Stephen, thanks for taking the time to respond.
I’m not intending to discount the Catholic position as “fiction.” Rather, I’m arguing that the concept of a cohesive, organized Church, with 12 apostles and a First Presidency of Peter, James, and John is a fiction. There was no organized Church or structure for centuries, and Peter simply wasn’t viewed then as LDS view Monson today. I hesitate to derail the conversation so will save my response for a post in the near future.
Ok. The formalized structure wasn’t as formal for sure and things fell apart fairly quickly.
But there was a structure.
We may not disagree so much after all.