Wendell Berry –Prophet of sustainable communties and agriculture
rogerdhansen in a comment on Bishop Bill’s recent post on Revelation Again suggests we need a visionary, spiritual prophet. Well, guess what –we are moving into the third Century of the Church. Visionaries tend to get a little scarce the longer the Church is around. Managers take the lead!
Prophets and revelations, however, are at the heart of our belief system. But many if not most commenters on that post felt there were few revelations, at least in our recent history, that could qualify as prophetic. The general discussion revolved around what it is that constitutes a significant revelation consistent with the status of a prophet.
I would like to spin this discussion off in a slightly different direction by exploring just what it means to be a prophet. The Oxford English Dictionary gives us several definitions, but I draw on two:
- A divinely inspired interpreter, revealer, or teacher of the will or thought of God or of a god; a person who speaks, or is regarded as speaking, for or in the name of God or a god.
- a prominent proponent of or spokesperson for a particular cause, movement, principle, etc.; a visionary leader or representative.
Most Mormons would likely choose No 1 as the definition for “our” prophet: a person who speaks for God. Other prophets are visionaries-No. 2. Are there prophets who fit both definitions, or is it rare that one person can be both a visionary and the spokesperson for God?
The Old Testament prophets embody for most people what a prophet is. I don’t think their main purpose was to predict the future. The Old Testament prophets commonly spoke truth to power, telling the people what the consequences of their actions would be. “If you continue to grind the faces of the poor, then your community is doomed”, for example. I am an environmental scientist, and I like to believe that scientists can play the role of the OT prophets: “If you continue to discharge raw sewage into this river, if you continue to pave over the prairies, then your community will be so much the brittler and so much the less resilient, and you will be going to hell in a handbasket,” or something to that effect! Think about Jeremiah– where does that word Jeremiad come from? The status quo church was not comfortable with Jeremiah, neither was he comfortable with them. Jeremiah 20 is revealing in terms of the animosity.
In the OT, prophets stand in opposition to the status quo Walter Brueggemann, one of the most influential scholars of the OT in the world, in his book “The Prophetic Imagination” believes that opposition is at the heart of the prophet’s task:
The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.
Brueggemann believes that the consumer culture of the West is a large part of the dominant culture around us. And what might be the alternative? That is where the Prophetic Imagination comes in. The prophetic alternative is not the easy road. It is a radical alternative that has to be imagined.
Our Second to Third Century prophets clearly line up with definition No. 1 above. Our leaders dress like American businessmen and they manage like business men (and now business women?). Certainly they stand opposed to certain characteristics of society that they find problematic – Word of Wisdom issues, breakdown of the family, and perhaps a general loosening of what they call morals. They do not articulate nor envision, however, a radical reworking of modern industrial society.
But some of their predecessors did imagine a radical future. Joseph and Brigham, aside from their faults such as polygamy and no priesthood for the blacks, clearly articulated a radical egalitarian future, where it would not be given that one person would have that which is above another. The Law of Consecration and the United Order were the result of that vision. Of course, like most radical visions, it eventually lost steam.
Vision eventually gave way to management, but an interesting outlier in the Twentieth Century was Spencer W. Kimble. His June 1976 Ensign article, The False Gods We Worship, was a direct attack on 20th Century consumer culture, delivered right on the Bicentennial. This powerful article, aside from an unfortunate slam on homosexuality, reads as powerfully today as it did 45 years ago. The false gods SWK alluded to centered on greed and covetousness. This piece is solidly in the tradition of the OT prophets. But not much else along these lines ever took place. The SWK False Gods piece went largely ignored.
Our prophets, seers, and revelators, then, are not much in the OT tradition of speaking truth to power. The vision thing does not appear to be their thing. I don’t know, though, that we should expect much from them in that regard, as we transition into the 3rd Century of Mormonism. They have their moments of illumination, and the pace of change does appear to be picking up. But the Q15 are about stability, not rocking the boat. Change can come but it will be incremental. I can sustain the Q15 as prophets, etc, of this church. But not so much as the articulators of radical change in the larger society, which is where we sorely need visionary leadership
There are other prophets out there, currently and in the recent past. These are the prophets of definition No. 2—the visionaries. Who are these prophets? Are they inspired? Do we ignore their message to our peril? These are people who stand in opposition to the status quo, and who imagine and articulate a radically different future. Martin Luther King was certainly a prophet. His I have a Dream speech still allows us to imagine and see the same future he did. The idea of a “beloved community” is an imagined future, but a very compelling one. Wendell Berry, maybe not quite of the same stature as King, but a prophet of that beloved community nonetheless. These prophets/visionaries have left us many writings. Should we treat these as scriptures of one sort are another? My wife will sometimes ask me if I am reading the scriptures. I say, yes of course, in am in 8th Berry, chapter 22. And why not? Berry’s work is inspiring. But might not need canonization.
Who else is out there? In terms of environmental degradation, including climate change, perhaps James Hansen, a prominent NASA scientist who wrote Storms of My Grandchildren. He is definitely an outsider even in mainstream environmental scientist. But he is one who speaks uncomfortable truths.
Other prophet/visionaries might include Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama. Jacque Cousteau? Vandana Shiva would have to be high on any list of prophets. She articulates a very strong vision of local food economies. These writings in my opinion are as important as the Book of Mormon, whose message is also one of radical equality.
What other prophet/visionaries should we be paying attention to? What is their message and why should we heed it? Mormons like and believe in prophets. Should we not support prophets in the Number 2 tradition?
Featured image from America, the Jesuit Review, Oct 2019.
Wheat & Tares 
Among Mormon prophets, I would name Kate Kelly and others who have promptly been excommunicated for speaking truth to power.
The trouble with many prophets is that they are ahead of their times and speaking truth to power, and so they offend most people, at least until the prophet is safely dead and no longer a threat to those in power and those out of power who still depend on those in power for our survival. See, most of us are under the control of those in power, so someone who threatens those in power also threatened those of us who depend on those in power. You know, you can’t threaten my rich boss, who pays me grocery money without it also being a threat to my grocery money. So, people like MLK are hated until after they are dead.
I have live through this process a couple of times, seeing someone who was hated by those in power, later come to be highly respected by those in power.
I’d like to comment on the narrative that President Russel M. Nelson represents “change” in the Church. It’s true that he started out that way. In 2018, he replaced home teaching with ministering in April and he introduced the two-hour block in October. And that was after telling us that “Mormon” was out of favor. Those were significant changes. In 2019, he reversed the 2015 exclusion policy in April and eliminated the YM presidency as we knew it in Oct. In 2018 and 2019, there were other less significant changes too like the revision of the missionary dress code and allowing them to call home as well as allowing for priesthood advancement at age 11. And I don’t want to minimize changes like the revision of youth interview procedures and dropping scouts and Duty to God.
But in 2020 we saw very little change that was not related to Covid-19. The Church had no choice but to cancel meetings and temples due to Covid. And Zoom became as much a part of the LDS Church experience as it did the experience of corporate America. But other than that, very little change. In fact, the Church made a huge effort to make General Conference as “normal” as possible. Heck, they even replayed MoTab Choir pieces that had been recorded in previous pre-Covid sessions. Seems like 2020 would have been a great opportunity to revise the tired format for GC that we’ve all endured for years.
My main point is that we saw two years of significant change in the Church under RMN but in 2020 we saw very little and so far in 2021 we haven’t seen much. So it remains to be seen whether the RMN era will be one of change after all is said and done. And how is this relevant to the post above? Well, I think many members came to view RMN as a real visionary at the beginning. They viewed all his changes as revelations from the Lord. But now, we seem to be back to the management model in which not much really changes. The Q15 operate the Church like a big corporation (because it literally is a big corporation) and I don’t expect to see much more change or visionary leadership. Most 90-year-olds aren’t known for change anyway.
For its first thousand years, Christianity was on the forefront of social change. It led developments in art, science, and exploration. Unfortunately, that changed in the Middle Ages.
What we need now are visionaries who return Christianity to the forefront of social. Change. Sadly, the Church lags far behind social changes these days. Far too often, it follows rather than leads. The most tragic example is the priesthood exclusion.
Their is no reason we can’t have a visionary who leads the world to a better, more compassionate existence. The time to lead is now.
Can organizations be prophets – or at least prophetic? People advocating for environmental responsibility, equal treatment of women, equal treatment of LGBT, even of better treatment of animals are visionary or prophetic in some ways. I can find flaws in my own argument, but what about people like Bill Gates who radically changed the world from a specific point of view like technology. I wouldn’t want to work for either of them but I’d argue that Gates for example played a key role in creating technology that has improved quality of life. Gates seems to continue to try to make the world a better place with his vast wealth.
To be honest. Part of me wants our Q15 to act the part of real prophets and more boldly ask for era change. But part of me doesn’t, because I’m convinced they’d advocate for causes that I don’t support like male only priesthood or excluding LGBT for example. Therein lies the problem – I don’t see them acting on God’s behalf.
Toad: the Church will advocate causes…even progressive causes. But they will wait for society to do so first (as you well know). So don’t count on any meaningful change from the Church in terms of leadership.
I really believe that the Brethren are willing to change but they are playing a complicated game: they are willing to change just enough to appease progressives eventually. But they don’t want to change too fast which would alienate the TBMs (who happen to do most of the heavy lifting). See, they could change much faster, and that would keep SOME people in who are leaving. But in doing so, they’d push some of the the MVPs out. It’s like 3D chess.
You can believe my version of things, or believe that they are waiting for revelation from the Lord.
I wonder what would have happened if in say 2005 General Conference, Pres Hinckley had prophesied specifically about the Great Recession of 2008, providing details about the subprime mortgage crisis, bank failures, and plummeting stock markets. Or if 10 years later in 2015, Pres Monson would have prophesied in detail about a deadly virus that would sweep the world in 2020. Firstly, would those have qualified as significant revelation? And secondly, would those prophecies have prevented those things from happening or maybe lessened their effects? Would they have accelerated them like perhaps a “self-fulfilling prophecy”?
Of course our thoughts and opinions on this are all speculation. I’m actually not sure what would have happened…
One of the things my dad always used to say he liked best about his mother (may she rest in peace) was that she could adjust the way she spoke to everybody according to their needs. She always spoke in very practical terms to him, the scientifically-minded younger son who went on to a career in physics, while she always spoke in very abstract spiritual terms to her older son, who taught high school art and became a temple sealer, yet they both learned the same moral lessons. I’ve come to see this as a model for the way God speaks to people now, individually and collectively. I won’t bother to look up the references, but it’s said somewhere in the BoM and the D&C that God speaks to people in the language they will understand. Ergo, he speaks in the way that is most likely to get his message across to those who need to hear. Much of the time, then, practical messages from God to us about events in the world that must shortly come to pass don’t come through ecclesiastical channels, because he knows we wouldn’t listen if they did. Those messages come to us filtered through the lives and works of scientists, social workers, and all the millions of people of good will and/or good skill who are studying the world and its problems in all their aspects, even as they disagree and squabble while working towards the truth. God is in all those details of small-p prophecy, even and especially those outside the hierarchy of the Church (which is the vast majority), just as he is in all who preach good works and faith in any religious or ethical tradition. After all, surely the many prophets crying repentance in Jeremiah’s day weren’t all part of the church structure of the time. The only thing we need a big-P Prophet for in Salt Lake is to remind us that for some reason I don’t fully understand, yet accept for now, God sees some value in designating some peculiar individual, and some peculiar variations on common Christian rites, as uniquely authoritative regarding their interpretations of the afterlife.
TLDR – I accept that Russell M Nelson & co are prophets, seers, and revelators, and the only ones on earth who hold all priesthood keys, but that doesn’t mean they’re the only ones who communicate God’s will to humankind. They’re just the only ones who many of us will listen to in spiritual matters. Most of us wouldn’t pay any attention to them in practical matters, so God doesn’t bother telling them practical things.
I overheard a couple of evangelical folks talking about a particular prophet somewhere in the Midwest. I didn’t know them and didn’t think it appropriate to start asking questions. It was clear that they were speaking of a prophetic gift rather than a role or any claim to leadership. I had a friend suggest some Christian podcasts to me and I listened to several over a few months. They also occasionally referred to prophesy as a gift of the spirit and to those who exercised that gift.
I agree that Mormons have a particular/peculiar notion of prophets – although it is, to me at least, ill defined. I know the “follow the prophet” mantra. I think sometimes we take any change, like those listed above, as prophesy. In reality, they have grown out of the results of committees, focus groups, pilot programs, or just waiting until an apostle finally gets the big seat and can make it so.
In some ways, we have ceded the gift of prophecy to the Q15. What would happen if the membership at large sought the gift of prophesy that lead to change within our own spheres of influence? It certainly would be challenging and exhilarating and frightening – but what a ride we could go on together.
It would be also threatening to authority. But that is expected when managers try to manage a visionary people. Definitely shades of Kirtland and Nauvoo.
Prophecy/prophesy –had to look the proper noun/verb spelling!
bwbarnett –I dont think that is quite the way prophecy works. It is rarely about specific forecasts. But prophesying about how messed up the system is with its “masters of the universe” indulging in insatiable greed –that’s what a prophet would be doing. Bona fide prophets (defined as you wish) stand against the status quo, and imagine an alternate future, a future that may be very difficult to achieve. Martin Luther King’s vision/prophecy is still way beyond our reach, but it still painfully indicts us. While MLK was prophesying, our prophets were dismissing him. Who had the “true” spirit of prophecy?
@Buddhist Bishop. I’m having a hard time understanding what some people here are hoping to hear from the Q15 that they aren’t hearing as it relates to prophecy and revelation. A list of recent changes in the church has been categorized as a weak excuse for revelation. And now your suggestion of what a prophet would be doing — “prophesying about how messed up the system is” — seems like what the leaders of the church do all the time. No??
Somewhere in church history the leadership changed from a progressive to a conservative organization. They saw their role as defending the established order, racism, homophobia, and sexism, and lying about history. 70% of members voting for trump is part of the result, and church culture that is more comfortable with trump than christ.
In Australia we have some prophets. In my state of Queensland, we have closed our borders to international travel, returning Australians are required to go into quarintine in secure places for 2 weeks. When there are outbreaks in other states we close the border to them too. We have a population of 5 million, and have had 6 deaths. Imagine if RMN had advised the governors of Utah, and Idaho to do this and you looked down the virus statistics for usa and came to Utah and no new cases, and 4 deaths, and the same for Idaho. Instead of 500 new cases and 2000 deaths, just like everyone else. We do have laws about interstate trade being open, these were waived.
We have a iron ore mining billionaire called twiggy forrest, he is building a renewable energy power plant in the pilbara, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/boyerlectures/oil-vs-water-confessions-of-a-carbon-emitter-v1/13072410 5 times larger than all the power generated in Australia. He has an agreement to supply all of Singapores electricity. He will also use this power to turn his iron ore into green steel, and green hydrogen, which is an energy source. These he will export, to the world.
He is also concerned about the economics of inequality.
In Western Australia (where twiggy operates) they had an election this weekend. They have a centre left government (Labor) like we do. Until 2017 they had a conservative government. That party has been moving to the right by recruiting religious people including mormons.
They had a total of 9 deaths from the virus and had a landslide victory, on top of a landslide victory in 2017. They now have 52 (21 in 2017) seats, the right wing party 2 (31 in 2017), and the country party 4 (7 in 2017). No one is doing a trump, the election was conducted by the Australian electoral commision.
Does it take a prophet or just a leader to beat the virus, and have an economy in surplus? Are they rewarded by the citizens?
My wife and I celebrated our 51 wedding anniversary yesterday, and are going to WA for the blessing of our 4th great grandchild 3 time zones away.
Why does the Church need a Prophet? Not to predict the future (be a seer), I don’t need a sign, I don’t need a miracle. Not to make minor organizational changes. Any competent manager can do that. I would suggest that we need one that is a visionary. Who can see real world needs and then organize the vast financial and human resources of the Church to work toward a noble goal. I believe that President Monson had the vision when he added a 4th to the Church’s mission list: assist the poor. Unfortunately, he wasn’t able to follow through.
We need a Prophet with a vision. A vision of a better world. Where all are equal. Where every member has a equal opportunity. Where we take the example of Christ seriously. Not just in name.