OF ASSES AND PROPHETS
by Michael Barker
A few weeks ago I was studying for that week’s Gospel Doctrine lesson, which came from Numbers, chapters 22-24 — the story of Balak, Balaam, and Balaam’s ass. As I was reading the story, a few things jumped out at me:
- The story of Balaam seems out of place in the total narrative of the Book of Numbers
- The story of Balaam’s talking she-ass is completely out of place within the Balaam/Barak pericope.
- Balaam was a non-Israelite prophet-for-hire. He was a “Mercenary-Prophet.”1
I would like to focus on the latter of these three issues, as it proposes some unique questions for Mormonism.2 Does Mormonism theology accommodate for and acknowledge the existence of prophets today outside of Mormonism? Ahem, let’s see:
“He holds the nations in the hollow of his hand;… he is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves. Alma seems to have thought, for the moment, that man was doing God’s work for him, instead of which it is God, who is doing his own work, and using men as his instruments. Nor is he limited in the choice of instruments to his own people” (Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1921, p.32-33)3
And:
“…Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of his Church, to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else…some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the Truth; while others remain unconverted…the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view…Again I say, the Lord’s Work has need of auxiliaries outside as well as inside, to help it along…many are kept where they are, where the Lord has placed them, and can best use them for the good of all…” (Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Twelve, April 1928 General Conference).
And:
“There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world . . . There were men who could gaze upon the face of God, have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world. If those were dark ages I pray God to give me a little darkness” (John Taylor, in Brigham Young et al., Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., reported by G. D. Watt et al. (President John Taylor, Liverpool: F. D. and S. W. Richards, et al., 1851–86; repr., Salt Lake City: n.p., 1974), 16:197–98.).
And:
“…The great religious leaders of the world such as Muhammad, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father…”(STATEMENT OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS REGARDING GOD’S LOVE FOR ALL MANKIND).
And:
“…Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of…” (Doctrine and Covenants 49:8).
And:
“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them” (Elder BH Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, 2 vols. (1907), 1:512–13).
I believe Mormon theology does in fact affirm the existence of prophets outside of the LDS institution. So, this begs the question then, what makes Mormon prophets unique from those outside our tradition? Discuss!!
____________________
NOTES:
1 I stole the term “Mercenary-Prophet” form Jared Anderson’s podcast episode for this lesson. Click here to listen.
2 Regrding numbers one and two, Jared Anderson and Colby Townsend, provided me the following insights. The italicized portions are Jared or Colby quoting scholarly texts. The non-italicized portions are the thoughts of Jared or Colby:
From Jared Anderson:
Numbers 24 (with the oracles) has the oldest Hebrew (as well as containing other markers of antiquity such as mentioning the otherwise unknown “Sethites”). Kugel says “because of their language and orthography (spelling), the blessings appear to be quite ancient” (p. 339)”
From Colby:
The earliest stage of the Hebrew language in the Bible is preserved by a few biblical poems. The usual examples of Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH) are Genesis 49, Exodus 15, Numbers 23-24, Deuteronomy 32, Judges 5, 2 Samuel 22 (which parallels Psalm 18), Psalm 68, and Habakkuk 3. Some scholars have tried to date these texts, but the evidence is only a relative chronology (not an absolute chronology).” (William M. Schniedewind, A Social history of Hebrew: Its Origins Through the Rabbinic Period (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 71.)
“Several recent [as of 1988] examinations of the Balaam Narrative have tended to the conclusion that the Tale is a distinct literary entity, alien to the original Balaam Narrative and oracles as a whole-in other words, an interpolation” (Jonathan D. Safren, “Balaam and Abraham,” in Vetus Testamentum, vol. 38, fasc. 1 [Jan. 1988], 105). It seems like that would separate the early parts of the story (Num. 22) from the poetry and oracles (Num. 23-24).
“The tale of Balaam’s Ass is a “burlesque” of Balaam as presented in the main Balaam Narrative, and reflects a late, hostile evaluation of Balaam common to other biblical passages (with the exception of Micah 6:5). “The present study will go a step further ad demonstrate that this parody [the tale of Balaam’s Ass] of Balaam was purposely modelled so as to evoke comparison, and at the same time contrast, with the Binding of Isaac (Akedah, Gen. 22:1-19). The Tale can in fact be considered a “reflection story” of the Akedah.”
Baruch Levine, in his anchor bible commentary on numbers, says that 22:22-35 is the “Tale of the Jenny.” It is a completely separate text, written well after the core of 22-24. It seems like it was meant to contradict 22:20, where Balaam specifically has permission to go with Balak, but then 22:22 says God was angry when Balaam went. Levine thinks 22:22-35 was written specifically to mock Balaam’s abilities…He thinks that 22:22-35 was written after Deuteronomy 23:5-6, because that is the first place one finds this negative view of Balaam. I’m looking to see if he says anything about the Hebrew.
“According to the interpretation to be adopted here, the Balaam narratives take their cue from the poems, but they reinterpret the issues reflected in them. The narratives represent a later composition, emanating from a very different circle of biblical authors.”
“The key lies in clarifying the particular perspectives conveyed, respectively, in the poems and in the narratives, and the themes and diction that inform each…It will emerge that the poems are older than the narratives and from a different environment. The narratives take up themes first introduced in the poems, and modulate then in significant ways…On this basis [the fact that both divine names Yahweh and El are use interchangeably to describe Yahweh] we would hypothesize that texts like the Balaam poems, though possibly originating in archives of the cult of El, the regional deity, were adapted by Yahwistic writers and reinterpreted to refer to YHWH, the God of Israel. Theologically, we would say that El merged with YHWH, with YHWH absorbing El.” Although he does not date this, the merging of El and Yahweh does not happen in the surrounding sections of numbers. This would represent a later use of the Hebrew names.
He doesn’t say much else specifically about 22:22-35 and the vocabulary used there. It is possible that the majority of the language is very much the same as the surrounding narrative. Levine seems to think that this section was its own stand alone composition. The only remarks he strongly makes about vocabulary is the El/Yahweh connection. …The best way to argue that 22:22-35 is later than the surrounding narrative is the contradictions in 22 and elsewhere that seem to be added later in order to force a view of the incompetent nature of Balaam. He is told to go, then gets reprimanded because he goes. He is then supposedly a prophet, but he is so blind and dumb that it is his donkey that has to point out the angel in front of him on the road. These points argue strongly that 22:22-35 were written later.
3 Thanks to Russell Stevenson for providing me with this quote.
I imagine some would try to argue that Mormon prophets have a monopoly on absolute and complete truth, it is after all a ‘fullness of the gospel’ in these latter days. Some truths were shared with these ‘non-Mormon’ prophets, but just enough to keep them in a degree of light.
I don’t know if I agree however and my indecision is based on my lack of belief that Mormonism is the one and only true church. That’s a belief I formerly held but no longer hang my hat on. I tend to lean more in the camp that suggests there are many paths up Mt. Fuji, and thus God would need a prophet for each path.
“I believe Mormon theology does in fact affirm the existence of prophets outside of the LDS institution.”
I do too. And these are a great collection of quotes affirming so. In my own experience I have also judged many others (such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) as prophets.
“So, this begs the question then, what makes Mormon prophets unique from those outside our tradition?”
A fair question, but one that I think must be largely personally answered. My experience with history leads me to conclude, along with the late BYU historian Richard Poll, that their role is more of a priestly than a prophetic one. There are times when they speak prophetically, but the only unique thing about them is that they are entrusted with a specific stewardship over this Church, while other prophets are not.
However, even with specific “keys” to this particular “vehicle” of the Church, I’m with Gina Colvin in acknowledging that the Church™ aspect of our Mormon community is managed by “managers” rather than by the “mystics”.
In the final 10 minutes or so of a recent Mormon Matters podcast on “The Best of Mormonism” she noted that “our mystics and our theologians are all among us; we walk with them everyday.”
This is very true in my experience. This is why I love to connect with a wide diversity of people, and I have found as much or more value in many of the things spoken by the mystics as I have in many or much of the things spoken by those in positions to manage the institution.
Naturally, I have come to develop very different “prophetic expectations” than many others sharing the pew with me: http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2011/09/prophetic-expectations.html
Unrealistic expectations of Church leaders are indeed one of the greatest stumbling blocks, from my viewpoint. The way so many Saints put our leaders up on a pedestal is just asking for a great fall. Far better to avoid that aspect of a faith crisis altogether and teach more realistic expectations right from the beginning.
Which is why I wish we could do away with the primary song “Follow the Prophet” since we can’t look to an imperfect vessel and expect perfection. Far better to sing about following the Savior since He IS the way.
http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2010/04/follow.html
Before the question can be answered there needs to be an agreement on what constitutes a prophet.
Are we talking about “Thus sayeth the Lord” type prophets who stop rivers, move mountains, and lay down the Law or are we talking about inspired men moved by The Spirit to minister and teach? Even if we view these types as just bookends there is still a vast amount of ground between the two that men can fill.
I remember hearing is a lesson one day that Mohammad was likely inspired to move his people from polytheism to the belief in one god. The fact that things subsequently got a bit out of hand does not take away from that accomplishment.
Similarly, I remember specific bicentennial focused missionary lessons teaching that Luther, Wycliffe, and Jefferson were inspired men sent to accomplish specific tasks.
There is no real question that the Spirit inspires and moves people in and out of the church to do and say things. There are also numerous accounts of others foretelling an event or outcome. However, does this, the spirit of prophecy, make someone a prophet?
I suspect Prophets (large P) are fairly limited while prophets (small p) are quite common.
If we throw out the label “prophet” and abandon the typology, what’s left is the purely practical. Based on teachings and service, there is nothing that distinguishes Mormon prophets from any other spiritual leader. If you could lay a template over spiritual leaders that aligned all the common teachings, you’d have a fairly good roadmap. (The unique teachings would make a really interesting reading list)
Why, it’s crystal clear to me there are prophets outside the LDS church. Else why would the church be so anxious to kick out mormons who have seen Jesus and brought back a message that the church heirarchy is screwed up? Sounds like all the “real” prophets, i.e., those who have actually SEEN Jesus, belong outside the church!
I think the “follow the prophet” Primary song is developmentally appropriate. The problem isn’t that kids learn and enjoy the song, it’s that we don’t add nuance to the message as they progress in and then leave Primary. Paying attention to the prophets is a valuable thing, and the majority of what they teach is good life practices. However, as teenagers we need to begin to differentiate ourselves and learn to follow our own moral compasses. We use the prophets as guides, but no longer rely on them for every rule–just as we cease to rely on our parents to solve every problem we encounter.