Fallible Prophets: Does Mormonism need to come up with a better theology of prophets?

[canard78]

I'd like to discuss four questions in response to Patrick Mason's interview with Bill Reel (quote posted after the questions):

1) Is the claim that God calls prophets in modern days "as central as it gets" for Mormonism? 
2) If we give away this central claim, is it true to say that we "might as well become Methodists or something?" Or would it be possible to have a viable Mormonism where an 19thC founder, Joseph Smith, was a prophet, but the leaders since him have not been? (This is my question, not Patrick's, the others are his questions or statements)
3) If the answer to #1 is 'Yes' then how do we "hold on to the very obvious fact that they are fallible, without giving up the gift of a claim that God calls prophets in our day?"
4) Do we need a better theology of prophets? If so, what should that theology look like?

Here's the quote for context (I've paraphrased slightly for clarity):
Patrick Mason (49:40): 

Once you admit to the fallibility of prophets, it opens the possibility that anything they say or do is fallible. 

We've been hesitant to go there. Everyone, intellectually, can acknowledge that prophets can and have made mistakes, but it's hard to say that. It's avoided because it's seen as a slippery slope. The slippery slope argument says that there's a risk that if we admit that prophets are ever fallible then that means they must be fallible all the time. That's simply not true. It doesn't follow.

One of the tasks before us is to come up with a better theology of prophets. We have to do it. I think it's one of the most pressing things before us.

In Mormonism, we do not want to give up the claim that God calls prophets in modern days. That's about as central as it gets. If we give that up then let's all go be Methodists or something like that. 

We have to be able to make a strong claim that God is speaking in the world today; that he does so through ordinary people to whom he gives a special calling. We don't understand why, but somehow, in some way, God reaches down and touches people, with a certain kind of grace. In some kind of way, he calls them to speak for him. 

What does that mean, that they speak in his name and his voice... and at the same time they are fallible? How do we hold on to the very obvious fact that they are fallible, without giving up the gift of a claim that God calls prophets in our day?

How do we do that? We haven't done the theology on this yet? No one else is going to do this for us. On this one, we're on our own. We have to do it individually, but we also have to do this work together.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-patrick-mason-planted/

 

[canard78]

Moderators... I don't know what's up with the formatting. Feel free to fix it if you're able to. 

It looks normal in edit mode.  

[Glenn101]

The theology of prophets is the one we have had from the beginning. God never gave us a better theology of prophets. He continually called prophets from among fallible men from the very beginning. The Bible is rife with examples of prophets that erred in some manner or other. Some errors were great enough that the Lord issued a "course correction" to such prophets. Jonah was one such prophet of note. If not for the intervention  of his wife in the case of a circumcision, we might have had a new prophet of the exodus than Moses. Moses had many interactions with the Lord, direct revelations, yet could be advised by his father-in-law, Jethro in matters. Balaam was given several course corrections when the king of Moab tried to get him to curse the Children of Israel. In 1 Kings chapter 13, we read of a prophet  that was killed by a lion because the prophet disobeyed God, in a seemingly trivial (to us) matter. Noah became thoroughly intoxicated on at least one occasion. Isaac was deceived by his wife and son Jacob, in that he gave the birthright blessing that would have gone to Essau as the first born.  Joseph, the prophet, that was sold into Egypt presented his son Manasseh to his father for the birthright blessing ut was overridden by Israel/Jacob who gave the birthright blessing to Ephraim. Joseph Smith made mistakes. Allowing the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation is a good example. The Lord chastised him for it also. Fallible people are all that God has to work with here on this earth.

If we believe in prophets, in the restored, Gospel, we have to believe in God, to trust Him that He will not allow a prophet to lead His Church astray. Can we rely on that assurance? But what choices do we have? Can we devise a better theology ourselves? I mean, really, here we are, a bunch of fallible people trying to judge judge other fallible people. What better means can one propose than having prophets called of God and confirmed by the spirit of revelation?

Glenn

[mrmarklin]

Prophets are infallible when they speak ex cathedra. Of course, they are men with good opinions the rest of the time.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

I'd like to discuss four questions in response to Patrick Mason's interview with Bill Reel (quote posted after the questions):

This is a great topic and has value as we grow in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.  I believe that all of the theology to understand that men are called of God to serve as prophets and apostles and how they serve is already taught.  For me, I consider the most important thing that the prophets and apostles to today is hold the Keys of the Priesthood - we are enabled to perform ordinances that are recognized on earth and in the eternities.  Without this fulfilling this role then Houston, we have a problem in a major way.

Do the leaders of the Mormon Church fulfill the definition of being a prophet and/or seer?  I define it as follows:

1. “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”  Amos 3:7
2. A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth.  - If God is talking to the Church as a whole he will talk through his prophets/apostles
3. a prophet/apostle is a special witness to Jesus Christ.

4.  Mosiah 8:17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.  18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

Addressing each point:

1. The prophets/apostles have added very little to the canon of the Church since the time of Joseph Smith.  If there are more secrets to reveal (which I strongly believe there are), God has not chosen to speak much in this area since Joseph.
2. Yes, I think our prophets and apostles represent God on earth and they address the Church officially twice a year in General Conference.  
3. Yes, they consistently testify of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected.
4. No, I don't think they manifest this gift of revealing things past and future.  Miracles? Yes, in a subtle way that many will not recognize - they testify of Christ and through their ministry they assist in opening hearts to the Spirit that individuals may repent, be baptized, and live in faith.  No, they are not moving mountains, changing the flow of great rivers, or stopping the damage of earthquakes.

Prophets speak when moved upon by the Holy Spirit.  Too many people forget this qualifier defined in D&C 68 and think that a man called to serve as a prophet forfeits his free agency and becomes an automaton or dummy that God has placed his fingers to move the prophets mouth and out come the words of God.  They remain human in every sense of the word just as each of us are human.  They have the mantle upon their shoulders and the responsibility to speak when Holy Spirit is upon them.  

I think we can do a better job of explaining the role of being a prophet and apostle.  However, I think most of criticisms are leftovers from 50 years ago and earlier times and have very little to do with how the prophets and apostles speak of themselves today or even the last 50 years.  We are dealing with historical commentary and misunderstanding as well as Mormon culture.  Yet, it suffices as an example that teaching is never done once or twice, but requires to be repeated and then repeated some more to prevent individuals from creating false teachings, correcting misunderstandings, and informing the new members. 

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by Storm Rider

[CV75]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

I'd like to discuss four questions...

Once you admit to the fallibility of prophets, it opens the possibility that anything they say or do is fallible. 

1.      Yes, it is central that God has formally delegated His priesthood keys to Joseph Smith, who (and his successors) passed them down to men we call prophets, seers and revelators. He did this through the administration of resurrected prophets who possessed those keys, beginning with John the Baptist. None of them were infallible in mortality, (and who knows how far they're gotten in the resurrection?), but the conferral of keys was accomplished.

2.      Leaders without these keys are not prophets in the same sense, which is a central tenet.

3.      God has always performed His work on the earth through, and delegated His keys to, fallible servants. 3 Nephi 11 gives good guidance on to handle this (verses 20-23, 41).

4.      I’m sure “someone” can up with one LOL

With man, all things are possible (as far as he can conceptualize), but with God, nothing shall be impossible (Luke 1:37). These are two very different paradigms.

Edited June 26, 2016 by CV75

[Thinking]

Fallibility was never part of the missionary discussions back when I served. We used to tell investigators that the prophet talked to God "face to face."

Do the current missionaries teach investigators that prophets are fallible?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Quote

1) Is the claim that God calls prophets in modern days "as central as it gets" for Mormonism?

Yes.

Quote

2) If we give away this central claim, is it true to say that we "might as well become Methodists or something?"

Yes.

Quote

3) If the answer to #1 is 'Yes' then how do we "hold on to the very obvious fact that they are fallible, without giving up the gift of a claim that God calls prophets in our day?"

Others have address this point above. I would add that people intimately familiar with revelation in their personal lives are less likely to be tripped up by the fact that God communicates to and through other human beings.

Quote

4) Do we need a better theology of prophets?

Prophets are not gods, so one can't have a 'theology' of them, but to answer the question as I suspect you intended it, no, we just need to understand and take seriously the one we already have.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[thesometimesaint]

A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.

[oremites]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

Once you admit to the fallibility of prophets, it opens the possibility that anything they say or do is fallible.

 

It seems you can look look at that statement, concentrate on the word "fallible" and make that the center of attention.  I prefer to make the word "prophets" the central concept.  If these men really are prophets, then some of the things they say will be important if not vital.

There's no magic "thus saith the Lord" algorithm to filter out the "prophetic" vs. the "fallible".  I have to grow spiritually and intellectually to be able to discern for myself what comes from God.  Knowing that there are prophets and that they are fallible requires me to put forth the effort to become the kind of person I should be - a person that can hear and recognize God's voice as it comes through His servants.  I believe that's a good thing.

[Avatar4321]

if you want an infallible prophet, you will be waiting a long time. I'd rather have an imperfect prophet than no prophet at all

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

Fallibility was never part of the missionary discussions back when I served. We used to tell investigators that the prophet talked to God "face to face."

Do the current missionaries teach investigators that prophets are fallible?

I never taught that the prophets speak to God face to face.  I doubt they do it now either, but it would not surprise to heat that some individuals do and have done it. 

[Eek!]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

1) Is the claim that God calls prophets in modern days "as central as it gets" for Mormonism? 

Whether or not the claim is "central to Mormonism" is imo less important than whether or not the claim is true.

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

2) If we give away this central claim, is it true to say that we "might as well become Methodists or something?" Or would it be possible to have a viable Mormonism where an 19thC founder, Joseph Smith, was a prophet, but the leaders since him have not been? (This is my question, not Patrick's, the others are his questions or statements)

The closer a religion comes to truth, the better, in my opinion.  If that means relaxing some claims and giving greater weight to the words of Joseph Smith, who imo demonstrably was a prophet, I see only good coming from it.  I might even re-enlist.

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

3) If the answer to #1 is 'Yes' then how do we "hold on to the very obvious fact that they are fallible, without giving up the gift of a claim that God calls prophets in our day?"

Imo it is a mistake to overclaim divine approval.  Use the term "President", and reserve the term "Prophet" with a capital "P" for someone who demonstrably is a prophet, seer, and revelator.   A man should not inherit another man's earned honor and earned authority simply by occupying the same office. 

There is a huge range between infallible and totally unreliable.  I would much rather listen to the carefully considered words of a man who knows he will be vetted by church members asking of God, than listen to the words of a man whose very title alone automatically pulls rank on anyone who might question him. 

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

4) Do we need a better theology of prophets? If so, what should that theology look like?

In my opinion, no power or influence ought to be maintained by virtue of the Priesthood (i.e. by pulling rank).  Instead, members should be instructed to put their primary trust in the guidance of the Spirit.  It should be taught that God the Holy Spirit out-ranks all church leaders combined. 

Imo "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" should replace "Follow the Prophet", as far as ideology goes.   I realize that's not a "theology of prophets"; I'll have to think about that one a bit more.

Edit:  Sorry about the spacing in the quotes, dunno what happened.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Eek!

[Jeanne]

7 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Prophets are infallible when they speak ex cathedra. Of course, they are men with good opinions the rest of the time.

Yeah..I agree.  The thing is.  there have been some huge mistakes.   God calls mortals but I don't believe he can call men who actually continue to sin.

[Kevin Christensen]

There is, of course, a formal statement of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants" (D&C 16), a verse not appearing in the scripture index in Planted, as well as the formal statement of weakness, error, limited knowledge conditions required for revelation which comes not all at once but "from time to time" depending on expedience and inquiry in D&C 1:24-28, key verses on the thread's topic that I refer to on these threads, but which I notice are to me conspicuously absent in Planted's scripture index.

Quote

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants was received in Hiram, Ohio on November 1, 1831, as a formal statement of “mine authority, and the authority of my servants.” (v 6). The leading verses describe how people have “strayed from mine ordinances and have broken mine everlasting covenant.” Verse 17 describes the calling of Joseph Smith in response, and verse 18 describes how God also gave commandments to unspecified [Page 133]“others.” Later, God explains that “I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons.” (v 34-35). Truth and revelation here are important for LDS claims, but both are expressly non-exclusive.

Speaking of the LDS leaders against the notion of absolute and actual truth as static and unchanging, see verses 24-28:

These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were made humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. Because the formal claims made for LDS authorities include incompleteness and imperfection, the presence of such should not diminish their authority any more than the imperfections and incompleteness of science diminishes the authority of science. By formal definition, both societies offer not static absolute truths but self-correcting processes.

From my Sophic Box and Mantic Vista. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

We wouldn't have to search for "better theology of prophets" or fuss overmuch about the implications of fallibility if we paid closer to attention to the format statement that we have in D&C 1.  I think it is wonderfully apt, tolerant, realistic, and robust.

And there are the 28 Biblical Tests for True and False Prophets.  My working theory on their neglect is that the more we forgo their use the easier it is to manipulate our conclusions in favor of our own wisdom and desires.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

I think what we really need is a serious consideration of the beams in our own eyes, a healthy consideration our our limitations as critics, of our fallibility. and misuse of things like the "Slippery Slope"fallacy.  After all, it's easy to point out the mistakes of government, of the judicial system, of technology, of hospitals and doctors, and pharmaceutical companies.  Yet our church critics are a bit more circumspect about putting themselves up as suitable replacements for science, law, medicine, technology, art etc.

In The Recovery Zone, Carnes talks about "The Grievance Story"

"We all have grievance stories. For example, we will all experience some form of betrayal. Even those who love us will still let us down sometimes. The grievance story is a tale we tell to comfort ourselves and to explain why something so painful happened. It provides a focus for our anger, reasons for our grief, and answers to our feelings of unworthiness. Most importantly, grievances feed our fears, allowing them to become disproportionate.  We may disown our responsibility for causing or adding to our pain. The grievance story, therefore, masks realities we do not wish to see in ourselves."  (Carnes, 115.)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA 

Edited July 2, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Prophets are infallible when they speak ex cathedra. Of course, they are men with good opinions the rest of the time.

Prophets are never infallible, regardless of the pose they may take.  You may be thinking of the Pope.

As Pres Uchtdorf says:  "I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes."  D. Uchtdorf, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Yeah..I agree.  The thing is.  there have been some huge mistakes.   God calls mortals but I don't believe he can call men who actually continue to sin.

Nonsense, Jeanne.  From where are you getting this?

[Robert F. Smith]

Hebrew nābʼî  Aprophet, one called by God@ (Mari nabû “diviner”; Akkadian nabû “to name, call”) = I Corinthians 12:28-29, Ephesians 4:11 prophētēs πρoφήτης Aprophet.@  So too, Hebrew nbʼ “to prophesy” (Arabic nbʼ “to inform, announce”) = Greek prophēmi “to foretell, inform.”[1]

Despite the common notion that prophets lack “an independent will,” according to Yohanan Muffs, a prophet is actually an “agent of the Lord.”[2] However, Muffs continues, a “prophet has another function: He is also an independent advocate to the heavenly court,”[3] but he is both “the messenger of the divine court to the defendant,” and also “the agent of the defendant, attempting to mitigate the severity of the divine decree.”  In Genesis 18:17-25, for example, “God’s hands are tied until Abraham, a human being, makes a request–that is, until a prophet intercedes.”[4]  So too, Moses argues with God that, deserving or not, God is obligated to clear His own name and reputation by redeeming His people – “even though they do not deserve” it.  Moreover, Heaven forbid that God might breach His own unconditional covenant!![5] (cf. Exodus 32:7-13, Numbers 14:15-16; Deuteronomy 9:26-29)  Prophets might actually carry out divinely ordered executions, as in the case of Samuel slaying Agag, King of the Amaleqites (1 Samuel 15:33),[6] or of Nephi slaying Laban, a Captain of Fifty in Jerusalem (1 Nephi 3:29-4:3,7-18).

“The usual definition of a prophet–someone whose prophecies come true–is really quite superficial,” Muffs points out.  “The first function of a prophet is to announce the Lord’s punishment and to call on the people to repent,” i.e., as “the messenger of the Lord.”  The second “function of the prophet is . . . to go into the breach, to build a protective wall and to prepare for the battle against the Lord.  The prophet is like a mighty warrior, but his only strength is his eloquence, the strength of his prayer, which may deflect the Lord from destroying his people.”[7]  “The breach that the prophet must protect is the breach of sin.  The enemy is not the army of the gentiles that is placing a siege around Jerusalem.  The Lord himself is the enemy, the warrior who is setting his face against Jerusalem to destroy it,”[8] and this was as true for Lehi as it was for Jeremiah.  Muffs concludes: 

Quote

Prophecy does not annihilate the personal independence of the prophet; it demands such autonomy as a prerequisite for the prophetic role.  Only boundless spiritual bravery allows the prophet to suffer the great loneliness of one who stands in the breach, calling on people who do not listen and a God who just might.[9]

The Jaredite equivalent may have been Akkadian muḫḫû, muḫḫūtu, maḫḫû “prophet, ecstatic prophet (Sumerian annibatu), cultic performer” (Sumerian ansala, MU.AN.SAL.LA; luʼede, lu₂-ed₃-de₃; lu₂-al-ed₂-de₃; luguba, lu₂-gub-ba; lunisub, lu₂-ni₂-su-ub, which also correspond variously to Akkadian aḫurrû, kurgarrû, assinnu “cult functionary,” zabbu).[10]   Cf. also Mari āpilu, āpiltu “answerer.”  Such prophets were often organized into a college of seers (barû-college),[11] which performed various cultic divinitory functions, such as liver extispicy,[12] astral magic, etc.[13]  At Ugarit, as in biblical “’consultations’ the ‘messenger’ (malʼāk) of the king and of Yahweh recurs constantly (cf. Jg 13:3ff.; 2 Kg 1:2ff.).”[14]  There are also many other parallels among the prophets of Mari, Ugarit, and Israel.[15]

[1] Cf. H. B. Huffmon, “Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy,” in D. Freedman, ABD, V:477-482.

[2] Yochanan Muffs, “Agent of the Lord, Warrior for the People: The Prophet’s Paradox,” Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):21.

[3] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):21-22.

[4] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002: 22.

[5] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):23-24.

[6] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):24.

[7] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):27.

[8] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):27.

[9] Muffs,  Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):56.

[10] ePSD.

[11] Ivan Starr, "The Baru Rituals," unpublished doctoral dissertation (Yale Univ., 1974) [bārū "seer"]; A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (1964), 206ff.

[12] Cf. A. Finet and J. Aro on liver extispicy in La Divination en Mesopotamie Ancienne, 14e Recontre Assyr­iologique Internationale (1966).

[13] Erica Reiner, “Astral Magic in Babylonia,” TAPS, 85/4 (Philadelphia, 1995), online athttps://archive.org/stream/AstralMagicInBabylonia/Reiner_astral_magic_in_babylonia#page/n1/mode/2up ; cf. S. Ahituv in Encyclopaedia Judaica, VI:111-116 (esp. column 114), citing W. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, N.Y., 1968), 123-194 (= 107-168 in London ed.).

[14] G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2^nd ed., 263 n62.

[15] A. Malamat, “A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents,” in P. Miller, ed., Ancient Israelite Religion (Phila., 1987), 33-47; Malamat, Mari and The Early Israelite Experience (Oxford, 1989); Malamat, “Parallels between the New Prophecies from Mari and Biblical Prophecy: 1) Predicting the Death of a Royal Infant,” NABU, 4 (1989):88; cited in del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2^nd ed., 48, 262.

[James Tunney]

Why don't the "prophets" ever tell us when they are speaking for the Lord as in "thus sayeth the Lord?" Is it so they can fall back on the "speaking as men" excuse if there are problems with what they've said? It seems it is wanted by them to be taken as from the Lord when spoken but from men when looked at historically.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Why don't the "prophets" ever tell us when they are speaking for the Lord as in "thus sayeth the Lord?" Is it so they can fall back on the "speaking as men" excuse if there are problems with what they've said? It seems it is wanted by them to be taken as from the Lord when spoken but from men when looked at historically.

Is your first suspicion always fraud or deception, and do you apply that to biblical prophets as well?  How do the biblical prophets speak?  Take a long look.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Hoe do we know when prophets are speaking as prophets and when they're just speaking as men?

[James Tunney]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is your first suspicion always fraud or deception, and do you apply that to biblical prophets as well?  How do the biblical prophets speak?  Take a long look.

I'm a skeptic so that's what my first question is when one says that they speak for God.  May I suggest that is your first thought when someone other than the Q12 or FP says that they are speaking for God?  You know, throughout the Bible and the BofM, the characters seem to always get an experience that gives knowledge but we are required to act in faith and not question the leaders.  How do you square that?

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Hoe do we know when prophets are speaking as prophets and when they're just speaking as men?

1. By the spirit
2. Consistency with previous revelations and scripture
3. When they state clearly which they are doing.

[Guest]

99% of Moses day to day activities as a Prophet were administration and acting as Judge in Israel. Just like all Prophets from Adam to today. 

[James Tunney]

10 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

99% of Moses day to day activities as a Prophet were administration and acting as Judge in Israel. Just like all Prophets from Adam to today. 

I would say 100%.  Nevertheless, to me, there is no way to be sure that they are speaking as men or as supposed prophets.  The race ban killed my shelf.  Sure, one may say that one can know through the amorphous confirmation biased emotion called the "spirit," but other religions use the same criteria.  Are those religions correct too?  Are they simply delusional?  How does one know this, the spirit? Isn't that circular reasoning?