…Moses, Miriam, Elijah, Deborah and Isaiah are often considered the five great prophets of the Old Testament. Miriam is treated in the Bible as second only to Moses. Elijah is revered as unequaled in power and scope. Isaiah is regarded as the preeminent witness and Deborah as the greatest of the Judges.
… They were all insiders. Moses a son of Pharaoh and the leader of Israel. Miriam as the head of the mid-wives and as second to Moses. Elijah as the head of the school of the prophets. Deborah as a judge. Isaiah as a preeminent courtier and member of the Court as well as the religious hierarchy.
… And then we have Jeremiah.
… As was noted in my ward’s Gospel Doctrine last Sunday, Jeremiah was a complete outsider. His confrontations were as much with the religious hierarchy as they were with the government.
. Which led several people to ask, how can you tell the difference between a Jeremiah and Nadab and Abihu or similar challenges to the hierarchy?
… Since I wasn’t prepared for that question to come up, and was only in the audience, I didn’t have an answer and just listened to the discussion, but it hit me that it combines some of the core of the Old Testament.
… As far as authority and challenges to it, the big points of the Old Testament are:
… 1. Generally, when God speaks to prophets, he isn’t as clear as we would like. Consider “he said, “Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams” or in riddles and communications hard to understand (Numbers 12:6, . A Moses is unusual – even Miriam wasn’t a Moses, nor was Elijah.
… 2. Prophets and the official hierarchy can be fairly out of line. Consider Eli’s sons, followed by Samuel’s sons.
… 3. Usually, rejecting the hierarchy for their wandering or faults or the faults of those they have put into power (again, see Eli and Samuel) isn’t generally as justifiable as you might think. “for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me” (1 Samuel 8:7).
… 4. Yet, every-so-often there is going to be a Jeremiah – but they are rare. God eventually pulls things back. (2 Thess. 2:3-4 indicates just how far it can go first — so does the book of Jeremiah — Jerusalem is destroyed and everyone is carried off into captivity).
… As far as a Church goes, the Old Testament reflects just how fluid things are as to form. Abraham didn’t have a home teaching companion (and neither do we these days). Sometimes the priesthood is limited to a family or a tribe, other times it spreads more widely. I don’t think that Daniel had sacrament meetings like we do, or personal priesthood interviews.
… Which tells me (making use of New Testament citations that are easier to use in some cases):
… 1. We probably do not know as much as we think we know. “In fact, people who think they know so much don’t know anything at all” 1 Cor. 8:2. 1 John 3:2.
… 2. God wants our trust more than our certainty. Luke 13:27. 1 Samuel 15:22. Luke 18:9-14.
… 3. Actions, love and caring for others, are more important than profession (statements of orthodoxy or belief). Matthew 7:23. 1 John 2:4. Isaiah 58:10-11.
… 4. We see through a glass, darkly, but that is part of free will and agency. 1 Corinthians 13:12. God never reveals enough that we lose freedom.
… I think we often stumble because we expect a Moses when we have “just” a “regular” prophet. Given that even Moses had his flaws (and Miriam and Aaron did not get very far when they tried to make a point about those flaws), I think that the underlying lesson is that there is a great deal of room for humility and patience.
… As for Jeremiah, while I admire him, I also remembered that he spent most of his ministry imprisoned in wet holes in the ground and finished it being stoned to death in Egypt by people who ignored him except to use him as a talisman or express their frustrations with him after a holocaust destroyed the nation he was in.
… What are your thoughts?
… What would you have added to the lesson?
… What comments would you have had that I missed the chance to add.
… =========================================================
… Post Scripts.
… While not a major prophet, Amos was also an outsider.
… Amos 7:14
… “Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit”
… For more on Jeremiah:
… Jeremiah grew up in the small town of Anathoth three miles northeast of Judah’s capital, Jerusalem. While close geographically, the two communities were far apart culturally and politically. Jeremiah was born into the priestly line of Abiathar, but had little standing with the priests in Jerusalem. Solomon had removed Abiathar from authority centuries earlier (1 Kings 1:28 – 2:26) and replaced him with the priestly line of Zadok in Jerusalem.
… When God called Jeremiah to be his prophet in Jerusalem, the prophet found himself in the midst of priests who did not accept his inherited priesthood. Jeremiah remained a suspicious and disliked outsider throughout his long career in Jerusalem. Those who face cultural, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious or other prejudices in today’s workplaces can identify with what Jeremiah faced every day of his life.”
Wheat & Tares 
Hmm, I’m not sure Elijah was an insider, unless you make a lot of assumptions about what his school of the prophets was. Most of Elijah’s interactions with those in power sure seem like outsider stuff.
In general, the Old Testament prophets post-Moses are understood to be from outside the religious hierarchy.
You may be right.
I mean, I know that the LDS interpretive lens wants to see prophets as the leaders of the church consistently, but history and scripture don’t really back that up.
At the same time, I do think you are making an important point and I don’t want to get lost in the weeds. I would rather that LDS Mormons recognized one prophet from outside the religious hierarchy and grappled with what that means for us than have a fight about the relationship of prophets to the religious hierarchy in general, if it means everyone just digs in. If that makes sense.
“What are your thoughts?”
Compare to Korihor, who also challenged authority. Korihor claimed there was no God, that the church hierarchy existed to deceive. Jeremiah and Abinadi also challenged authority but each asserted the existence of God and one’s duty toward God (and toward each other, which is what duty to God means in most cases).
The key ingredient is not the existence of challenge, but the existence of a knowledge of God and one’s motives in challenging anything, and to whom one presents this challenge, and whether I present myself an an authority (judging the judge) instead of a caution (reminding of duty or scripture, it is the authority, not ME).
In relation to the coming of Christ, Abinadi and Samuel, the Lamanite, can be classified Old Testament era prophets who were both outsiders to their audiences. Might be interesting to see how they compare and contrast to the Old World outsider prophets.
Interestingly Samuel prophesied at the same time and to the same people Nephi, the son of Helaman, prophesied among. Nephi was an insider but Samuel was not. Could this be part of the reason for Nephi’s words being recorded in the official record but not Samuel’s? Makes one wonder how the Nephite religious establishment, led by Nephi and then his son, regarded Samuel before the coming of Christ. That could have some bearing on discussions of sources of inspiration, revelation, and pronouncements from the Lord outside normal church hierarchy.
Kullervo writes “I would rather that LDS Mormons recognized one prophet from outside the religious hierarchy and grappled with what that means for us”
There can be no recognition of a prophet by Mormons unless the hierarchy designates such person; at which point such person is part of the hierarchy.
All persons or any person can be a prophet; all it takes is the spirit of prophecy, so anyone possessed by the Holy Ghost can be a prophet; and anyone with the gift of the Holy Ghost has a bit more entitlement to it but as I sometimes remind people, Joseph Smith was not a Mormon, not baptised, and yet he saw God and Jesus.
To prevent confusion arising from millions of prophets the scope of each prophets’ prophecies is limited by decree to that person’s stewardship. Each person that feels to counsel the Prophet (Capital P) ought to consider carefully the source of his or her inspiration. I have little doubt that such things are inspired, but there be many spirits.
An example is the Stake Patriarch. He’s a prophet for the stake and not really in the hierarchy at all. His job is to listen carefully to the Holy Ghost and convey in words what he thinks it means to the person he is blessing at that moment. Another task is discerning what spirit he has tuned into, whose words he whispers.
At present the prophet is a position, not requiring the capability of communucating with God as the old testament prophets did. Because of the longest surviving Apostle gets the job almost 50% of the last 50 years the prophet has suffered from dementia. You would hope that if a prophet like Deborah came along she would be recognised, but I doubt it. The selection process for prophet should change to allow a potential real prophet to be recognised.
So we are stuck with redefining revelation to suit what we have. I am at present converting my 2006 mercedes s class to be mechanically/electrically a 2017 S500e plug in hybrid. I get ideas in the night, some of which work, to help me overcome the problems that arise. I don’t think of them as revelation, so am surprised that similar activity by Pres Nelson is accepted as revelation.
Geoff-Aus writes: “The selection process for prophet should change to allow a potential real prophet to be recognised.”
Please describe the recommended procedure by which a real prophet is recognized.
Great thoughts. I’m thinking of starting my lesson on Jeremiah by telling the story of the confrontation of Ch. 28 as though I witnessed it happening on temple square. Two “prophets” each prophesying in the house of God in the name of the same God; one an outsider warning of God’s displeasure, and the other an insider reinforcing the well established theology that we have an indestructible dispensation and that we can trust our leaders. The insider radiates power and zeal as he testifies that all is well, and dramatically silences the apparent deceiver and sends him away as a devil detected and dismissed. I feel like that will be a good way in for the class to understand the controversy in Jerusalem at the time, to wrestle a bit with the authority issues it raises, and to better understand why Lehi found himself driven to prayer in 1 nephi 1. Jeremiah is a very challenging book for the institutionally religious, and I want to make sure I’m bringing that challenge to the class, albeit in a productive way.
Bob —let is all know how the lesson went.
Our ward is somehow several weeks behind everyone else. So I won’t teach that lesson until the 25th. I’ll comment with a rundown when it happens.
We aren’t led by a prophet. Rather, we are led by presidents and councils. There are prophets all among us who teach and testify, but decisions are made by presidents sitting with councils. This is the Lord’s way.
Intetesting take. I think trying to equate Mormonism to anything in either the Old or New Testament, is a square peg, round hole exercise. What constitutes a Prophet then, compared to now, is not an apples to apples comparison by any stretch.
I was brought up to believe that our Church was an actual restoration of the 1st century Church. This claim, by any reasonable measure is fundamentally not true.
Comparing Moses, Elijah, Samual, or Jeremiah to Pres Nelson is a false comparison outta the gate. Similarly, comparing Elder Holland (or any Q15) to Peter or John and drawing some equivellancy based on both their positions as Apostles, is a false pretext for meaningful discussion.
That’s what I struggle with in these lessons.
The lesson was a doozy.
I opened as planned by recounting Jeremiah Ch. 28 as though I had witnessed it on Temple Square. There were lots of righteous nodding, “tsk-tsk”-ing, and condescending chuckling as I described the strange performance artist/protester with his wooden yoke predicting bondage and destruction for the Church. I didn’t name names, but described a “general authority known for his zeal and eloquence” prophesying safety and security in opposition to the protester’s message and ultimately smashing the wooden yoke. There were audible gasps as I played out the dramatic breaking of the yoke.
I then reviewed Jeremiah’s context, calling, message, and the nature of his confrontation with the “prophets” of his day. We talked about the Deuteronomistic Reforms and the ambiguity and ambivalence of scripture toward them. We talked about some of the distinguishing features of the prophets and priests who opposed Jeremiah, and how strong the doctrine of institutional infallibility/invulnerability was in Judah at the time. My goal was to let them see how hard it would have been for people at the time to see the truth of Jeremiah’s message, since their doctrinal tradition so strongly emphasized that their institution would not fall, and the importance of having confidence in their priests, prophets, and wise men.
At the end of the lesson, I re-told the story of Jeremiah 28, this time making it clear that Jeremiah is the performance artist and Hananiah the false prophet replacing wooden yokes with iron by causing people to trust in lies.
My friend visited the class from another ward, and afterward said he expects the Bishop will get a few complaints about the lesson. I told him that the Bishop was sitting two rows in front of him and saw the whole lesson, so he won’t have to rely on second hand information.
We didn’t quite get to everything I wanted to. I’d hoped to hold up Lehi as a model citizen of Jerusalem, driven to pray for his own answers when confronted by the prophetic controversy. His priority wasn’t choosing which arm of the flesh to trust in, but rather getting pure information from God. Sure he learned which messengers had been speaking the truth, but he ended up with trust and reliance on God rather than on them.
Here are the lesson notes for those interested: https://areturning.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/11-25-2018-old-testament-lesson-41-jeremiah-lesson-notes.pdf
Wow!
What a fantastic and thought-provoking lesson.
Thanks for coming back with the report.
I don’t think I would want to listen to a lesson equating a general authority sustained by common consent in today’s church to a enemy of righteousness and temple square apostates to God-appointed prophets. But the idea of Lehi listening to both and going to God is intriguing.
Ji,
The Book of Jeremiah suggests that the people of Jerusalem didn’t enjoy listening to that either. The point of the lesson was this: No matter how true and faithful our leaders are, if our attitude towards authority is the same as the people in Jeremiah’s day (that our leaders cannot lead us astray, that our institution is immune to apostasy and destruction, and therefore we are allowed to trust in the arm of the flesh), then that belief will leave us stranded in the Telestial kingdom. There is no exemption to Jeremiah’s and Nephi’s curse pronounced upon those who trust in the arm of the flesh; Those who do so are cursed, even if the prophet they choose to trust in is a true messenger (D&C 76:99-101). The lesson was designed to be uncomfortable, because there I know of no other way to prod people to re-think their concepts of authority.
In Jerusalem in 600 bc, your spiritual and physical survival depended on being open to the possibility that the prophet you sustained had spoken in YHWH’s name vainly, and that a “temple square apostate” was actually speaking God’s words. I suggest that a refusal to be open to that possibility today is idolatry, is by definition “trusting in the arm of the flesh”, and is no less spiritually deadly.
Thank you for the update.
bob,
I disagree. I choose to trust the called and sustained leaders of the church, and think it is fully honorable to do so. I will uphold them with my confidence, faith, and prayer. I believe that by accepting the Lord’s servants, I accept the Lord. You err in admonishing me with cursing and a charge of idolatry.
ji,
I didn’t curse anyone, least of all you. Nephi is clear, as is Jeremiah, that trusting in a man is antithetical to trusting in God. I pray for the leaders of the Church, sustain them, follow the guidelines they establish within their sphere of responsibility as far as I am able, but I don’t “trust” in them because that would curse me. Our history has abundantly demonstrated that the only being worth laying our confidence, faith, and trust on is God.
For example, if I am not obligated to believe that Adam is my Heavenly Father and entered Eden with a resurrected body which was then rendered mortal again by partaking of the fruit (which I would absolutely have to believe if I were commanded to “trust in” the called and sustained leader of the Church, Brigham Young), then nobody is justified in asking me to trust in the leaders of the Church. Unless Brigham’s doctrine is the official doctrine of the Church today, and he declared in General Conference was a revelation which would damn those who disbelieved it, then the official position of the Church is that it is not wise to trust the teachings of the President, even if he declares them to be a revelation. A person who heard Brigham declare that doctrine in 1852-1877 would have been wise, according to the Church’s position today, to say “That is fine that Brigham is teaching that, but I believe he is mistaken and I trust God to teach me the truth”. Trust in Brigham would have led someone to accept a doctrine later described as a “deadly heresy”.
I commend you for sustaining our leaders, and for praying for them. I do the same. I urge you to rethink your policy of “trusting” them or placing any “faith” in them. As I said before, even if they had a perfect track record of teaching inerrant saving doctrine (and we have seen that they do not), STILL it would be folly to trust anyone but God. God bless
bobsonntag writes “There is no exemption to Jeremiah’s and Nephi’s curse pronounced upon those who trust in the arm of the flesh”
It seems you trust the flesh of the scribe that wrote these stories.
At any rate you seem to be missing the point, or “a” point: The church is not the gospel and vice versa. The church is an organization to which you subscribe (or not).
I trust the pilot of the aircraft in which I am a passenger. If I did not, I would not board the aircraft.
I trust other drivers on the highway to stay in their lane. To be sure, a few do not, but most do. It is a risk I accept in return for the benefits of automobile.
I trust the apostles to speak the truth with regard to the gospel. A few might not. It is a risk I accept in return for the benefits of church membership.
bobsonntag writes “then nobody is justified in asking me to trust in the leaders of the Church.”
And yet they are as free to ask you as you are to refuse.
Regarding the counsel to not trust in the arm of flesh, I propose this includes one’s own flesh (wisdom, knowledge, etc).
Michael 2 writes “It seems you trust the flesh of the scribe that wrote these stories.”
I am certain that you know better than to think that anyone who believes what God has revealed (past tense) through a prophet is guilty of trusting in the arm of that prophet, so I’ll tell you straightforward that this accusation is beneath you. I can believe what God has revealed through a person without vainly imagining that this person is incapable of leading me astray in the future. And, in fact, that is the only course of action I can see that allows a person to receive the ministry of true messengers while avoiding the curse of trusting in the arm of the flesh.
If you are interested in better understanding the difference between “receiving” a prophet and trusting in the arm of the flesh, I explored that somewhat in a blog post here: https://areturning.wordpress.com/2018/06/20/god-is-no-respecter-of-persons-and-you-shouldnt-be-either/
Bob, there’s a circularity in using an arm-of-flesh-written verse advising to not trust in the arm of flesh. The shortest form of this is for me to claim “I am a liar”; for if I am telling the truth, then I am not telling the truth; and if I am not telling the truth then I have just spoken the truth.
I recognize that each person will choose who to believe and who not to believe for a wide variety of sometimes interesting reasons.