This came up in my memories and comes to a question I still do not have an answer to.
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 pre-eminent 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 the high judge. Isaiah as a pre-eminent courtier and member of the Court as well as the religious hierarchy.
And then in counterpoint we have Jeremiah. We also have Nadab and Abihu who were not called of God.
This came up in my ward’s gospel doctrine class. Jeremiah was a complete outsider. His confrontations were as much with the religious hierarchy as they were with the government.
Back then this 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:
- Generally, when God speaks to prophets, God is not clear. To quote “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.
- Prophets and the official hierarchy can be fairly out of line. Consider Eli’s sons, followed by Samuel’s sons. Even more, remember Aaron built the golden calf and led the people in worshipping it.
- Usually, rejecting the hierarchy for their wandering isn’t generally as justifiable as you might think. “for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me” (1 Samuel 8:7).
- Yet, every-so-often there is going to be a Jerimiah – but they are rare. God eventually pulls things back, but slowly.
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.
Which tells me from the scriptures (including some New Testament citations that are easier to use in some cases):
- 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.
- God wants our trust more than our certainty. Luke 13:27. 1 Samuel 15:22. Luke 18:9-14
- Actions, love and caring for others, are more important than statements of orthodoxy or belief. Matthew 7:23. 1 John 2:4. Isaiah 58:10-11
- We see through a glass, darkly, but that is part of free will and agency. . 1 Corinthians 13:12 and
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 Jerimiah, 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? I still don’t have an answer. Do you?
Wheat & Tares 
As I get older I have come to a personal realization that we substitute much cultural thought based upon personal lived experience into our doctrine. I don’t think we know as much as we think we about many details.
It’s no mystery how the LDS leadership would react to a not-from-the hierarchy prophet who rose up from the common people — they would throw him (or her) in the well, just like Jeremiah. So much for the restoration of all things. It’s the restoration of some things and ignoring or opposing other things. It’s cafeteria restoration.
How can you tell the difference between a Jeremiah and Nadab and Abihu or similar challenges to the hierarchy?
Sunday school conversations are about establishing “legitimacy” aka “authority” in the narrative across in a cohesive way that spans centuries. Because it is a “unification process” after the fact, it winds up pulling in outsiders as well as the expected insiders. Old Testament historians have done a lot of scholastic research on some of the factors about this narrative and how it came together.
– Part of that is hindsight in the sense that words attributed to Jeremiah made it into the history books and/or historical cannon whereas other outsiders did not (hence labeling Jeremiah a bona-fide prophet).
– This “authority conversation” leaves out a lot of nuance, and probably whitewashes stories about individuals as well.
NOTE: Had I been in the conversation this is how I would have answered the question, and then moved into a modern-day question about “authority” and “how we authorize/legitimize the authority of people in our lives” (if I was teaching).
I spent many years gathering Biblical Tests for Discerning True and False Prophets. I came up with a list of 28 distinct tests with references for both true and false paired throughout the list to make clairity easy. The single best known test, fulfillment of prophesy, turned out to be the one most qualified by precept and abused in practice, which also explains its popularity. Then I studied Biblical recommendations for seeing truth. These turned out to be a formal process for offering up what a person thinks and wants in order to find what is real, essentially the offering the sacrifice of a contrite spirit (offering what you think) and a broken heart (offering what you desire).
Be interested
Listen with Purposeful Intent: Seeking Knowledge of God
Study with Open Minds and with Faith (where faith is hope for that which is not seen)
Examine the works
Listen to all the witnesses (not selecting to justify a desired result)
Consider the credentials and motives of the authorities and witnesses involved
Be as concerned with measuring yourself as with measuring the prophets
Receive the prophets and their followers for what they are, not requiring them to be something else
Pray
Persist whatever the cost
Then I gathered around 70 distinct arguments given by Biblical peoples to justify rejection of Biblical prophets. They all turned out to be in use today. And they turn out to boil down to people saying, “It’s not what I think” and/or “It’s not what I want.” For instance, in 1 Kings 22:8 reports of a king who said, “There is yet one man, Micaiah… by whom we may inquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.” And appeal to tradition or rival authorities: “Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” (John 7:47). People sometimes missapply the relevant tests, or succumb to false information or misinterpretation, but overall, the arguments given simultaneously demonstrate exactly where they have failed in the process of offering up the sacrifice of a broken heart or a contrite spirit. One crucial aspect of the recommendations for seeing truth is that they should start with self-criticism. “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall also be judged:… first cast the beam out of thine own eye; then shalt thou see clearly.” Matthew 7:2, 5 (see Matt 7:1-27). It’s fairly common to reject a prophet and or their followers for not living up to your personal ideals, which creates arguments in the form of “It’s not what I think,” and/or “It’s not what I want.” “The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners” (Matthew 11:19) or “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day” (John 9:16). Or they complain about followers not living up to some personal ideal. In Romans 2 Paul reports “23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.”
I used to wonder why the full range of tests for true and false prophets were not better known, but I realized that if you decide to judge prophets against what you personally think or want, it is easier to get exactly the answer that you want without risking the necessity of having to make the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, including, allowing for easily discernable human weaknesses of the prophets and their followers. In this light I thought it interesting when Joseph Campbell reported that many ancient temples had guardian figures at their entrances representing Fear and Desire. To enter the Real, you had to be willing to let go your Fear (What you think is so) and what you want. That is, to offer the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
I think Hugh Nibley was a prophet outside the hierarchy, called by God for his purposes. One of the reasons that he was a true prophet in that non-hierarchical sense is that he put his talents in service of the community of Saints, rather than to promote himself. His talk on “Criticizing the Brethren” explains why. And I can think of several others of the Saints and several outside our community who operate that way. On the other hand, I can think of those who began with the most well-intended ways, but who demonstrate the aptness of Joseph Smith describing those who rise “up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that man is in the high road to apostasy…” (TJPS 156).
Kevin—the story of Micah is one of my favorites.
All—I appreciate your responses. Other than hindsight I have absolutely still no good answer to the question.
Thinking about prophets inside or outside the hierarchy is interesting. It’s been my experience that I’ve seen many more prophecies outside the hierarchy than I’ve seen inside it. This would include Hugh Nibley but also modern authors like Jared Diamond who wrote “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and “Collapse” who isn’t a member of the church. I also think about people like Martin Luther King and his “I Have a Dream” speech as just one example of his many writings and speeches. I could make a long list but you probably get the point I’m trying to make and that is there are many people in this world who can “prophecy” about things going on in this world, some of which even have spiritual connections, maybe even deeper spiritual connections than those we find given by modern prophets.
This is a very interesting topic, and I think this is where religion overlaps with power dynamics & organizational power dynamics – the distinction between them gets messy very quickly (both in the OT and modern Mormonism).
I’ve heard the argument that there is “p” prophet and “P” Prophet – a “prophet” may be called of God at any time and be from anywhere. This includes wise leaders, sages, philosophers, etc. from various backgrounds and religions. Whereas “Prophet” is an official title for the person heading up the church…essentially a “prophet” with a presidential “P.”
So Moses would have had a “Prophet” (maybe even a “PROPHET!” with Aaron as a “Prophet”). Meanwhile, Jeremiah would have only been a “prophet”. Nadab and Abihu maybe weren’t anything, but liked dropping their dad’s name and got burned (har har har) for their sense of self-entitlement.
Jeremiah is interesting. Imagine it’s the year 2100, and the Canadians have been out conquering parts of the northern US. There’s a haggard-looking guy named Jeremy hanging out on Temple Square wearing a sign saying “Repent! Destruction is nigh!” and telling people the Canadians will destroy the city if they don’t repent. Lots of people know Jeremy because his dad was in the Q70 back in the 2020s, but Jeremy is generally mocked and hated by both church and political leaders for questioning their authority and stirring up fear.
Despite years of abuse and being pushed into the fountains, Jeremy persists…then one day, lo and behold, I-15 turns red as an army of Canadian Mounties descends on Salt Lake City and politely sets fire to the city. “Flipping heck! Jeremy was right!” Surviving LDS Mormons flee Utah into exile, seeking refuge with their CoC cousins in Missouri. They vow to one day reconquer their homeland and rebuild Temple Square. The “official” capital-P Prophets read up on Jeremy and realize that he was right about all sorts of things, and was a fantastic writer to boot (too bad Jeremy was captured). Over the generations Jeremy becomes one of the most revered prophets in D&C sections 263 & 264…we just ignore that bit where he was more right than the official leadership.
I think it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between a Prophet/prophet/wannabe/lunatic/dictator…this sort of links back the Angela’s post yesterday about discerning between a religion and a cult. It’s often hard to do, especially with the social pressures that come from being inside of a church. Even Jeremiah was mocked and ridiculed until it was too late.
I’ve said before that there’s no green light that illuminates over a prophet’s head when God turns on the microphone. We have to look for sources of truth that make us and the world a better place, even if they weren’t filtered through the LDS correlation department.
In Mormonism and the LDS Church, it’s hard to have a clear discussion on this because (1) the Church has made “Prophet” a word to describe the President of the Church, the top box on the org chart; (2) has designated and constantly emphasized the titles “prophet, seer, and revelator” applied to the Big 15, despite the fact that none of them prophesy, translate, or reveal anything; and (3) with little warrant, has taken all the Old Testament features of “prophet” and applied them to the LDS President and the Big 15. It would be like if, in the Old Testament, writers suddenly started calling all the Jewish high priests and Sanhedrin members “prophets.” Just calling someone “prophet” does not make them so.
And of course the LDS Church categorically denies any prophetic claims outside the hierarchy. So if none of the Big 15 do any prophesying, seeing, or revelating, and no one outside the hierarchy is given any recognition for any prophetic gifts — we reach the odd realization that the Church has pretty much cancelled and eliminated prophets, despite constantly making the exact opposite claim. There probably aren’t a dozen Mormons in the whole Church who recognize this.
I guess I’d add that while we often can’t tell the difference except in retrospect, we can try to tighten up that feedback loop as much as possible. A few ideas come to mind:
-We can improve our decision making and reasoning skills.
-We can be aware of common red flags and signs that leaders are leveraging their power in questionable ways.
-We can create pockets in the community like W&T where we can seek reality checks and independent thinking.
-We can have honest and ernest discussions with people different than us who can sometimes offer clear outside perspectives.
-We can avoid one-way-street decisions. I was taught when you come to a fork in the road, try to find the path that will be the easiest to change in the future.
-We can try small-scale experiments on ourselves to see if they make our lives better or worse.
On the Mormon list of who is a prophet and who is not is the requirement that the prophet has to be male or they are not a real prophet. So, while most Christians consider Deborah a prophet, Mormons ignore her, because a woman can’t possibly be really inspired, and powerful, and a prophet. The Bible calls Miriam a prophet but we ignore her in our Sunday school classes and our Bible dictionary carefully explains how the word prophet is different when applied to her than it is when applied to Moses.
The present mormon understanding of “prophet” is the beginning point for most of what is wrong with the church.
God can only communicate through crazy people, otherwise it would violate our Free Agency.
“Treason never prospers, what’s the reason? …”
I came to a similar question years ago on my mission. I realised pretty quickly that there are many men and women that claim to speak for God. Almost everyone of them were crazy. So I made up my mind and committed to God that the Q15 are the only crazy ones that I am willing to trust to reveal the word of God. And that if God wants to speak to me (in the case where i cant speak with God directly). Then he is going to have to use them to speak to me. I won’t listen to anyone else. So far God has not had to really use them to speak to me because in my lifetime they have not really revealed the word of God, or prophesied, or seen. Nor have they been useful in mediating between me and God. So far me and God are on reasonable terms and can sort out our own issues. So I am not really sure what a prophet in this day and age would pragmatically do
What is the purpose of a prophet? This is a question I have not yet found an answer to. I understand the purpose of a prophet is to lead, or at least serve as a figurehead to, a particular group of religious devotees. But what the purpose of a prophet is in my personal life, I don’t know. What is the purpose of a prophet in a larger world context, I don’t know.
“I think Hugh Nibley was a prophet outside the hierarchy, called by God for his purposes”
This comment by Kevin illustrates my conundrum on many levels. For one, the church leadership used Nibley where convenient and kept a healthy distance from him if and when he became inconvenient. Most Mormons don’t know who he is, and if they know who he is, it is doubtful they’ve read and internalized what he had to say. The Mormons in my ward really only want to point to select snippets from the scriptures and conference talks to try to feel good and validated in their personal lives. Few study Mormonism and Mormon apologetic thought in any depth. What exactly did Nibley do? What exactly did he contribute to? Writing lots of books for a very select audience of Mormon believers? Creating a defense narrative of traditional Mormon teachings that may have deterred many members from leaving the church? Nibley is unknown outside Mormonism. And no one seems to validate his key arguments outside Mormonism (even within Mormonism, his validation is fading). Did he really make significant contributions to the overall body of scholarship that has percolated down to common discourse? Not that I can tell. At best he influenced a lot of Mormon apologetic thinking and became a crutch for Mormon intellectuals to rely on to feel confident as believers. This, however, is fading away. Nibley, the apologist, is increasingly dismissed. And Nibley, the social visionary, is reviled by the bulk of Mormondom in the Mormon belt, who is overwhelmingly politically conservative.
A prophet gives us new eyes. We see things differently from before, and the seeing of things differently transforms our being. This goes for both “true” and “false” prophets, and for good and evil sayings. A false prophet will offer a lens of fancy sunglasses, and we will be puffed up, in-the-know, and confident with information that passes for knowledge. A true prophet will give us eyes to see a little closer to the vantage or lens of the Lord.
although the Church would like us believe that the Q15 (or maybe just Pres Nelson) are prophets, it’s more like they are CEOs and board members. They bear little resemblance to OT prophets, or even John the Baptism.
The question then becomes: Are there real modern-day prophets? How would we know one? I guess by their fruits. But that is a difficult criteria. Each person has their own interests and obsessions. Mine aren’t matching up well with Nelson’s.