Some suppose that as we believe in prophets and prophecy, we therefore believe that prophets have clear, explicit future predictions and understandings. However, as we consider sacred history, ancient and modern, we are confronted with the contrary idea that as Latter-day Saints, we often possess no special access to the future, regardless of our righteousness. Even when we receive clear impressions or promptings indicating a course of action, rarely do we know at the time of the impression the reasons or consequences for following or not following. Our knowledge and perspective is inherently limited to those items which are most needful and pressing for us to know.
Let us briefly examine the role of prophets and limitations with regards to their clairvoyance. In the Bible Dictionary, we read
“The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God’s messenger and make known God’s will. The message was usually prefaced with the words ‘Thus saith Jehovah.’ He taught men about God’s character, showing the full meaning of His dealings with Israel in the past. It was therefore part of the prophetic office to preserve and edit the records of the nation’s history; and such historical books as Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings were known by the Jews as the former Prophets. It was also the prophet’s duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. He was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the divine requirement. In certain cases prophets predicted future events, such as the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah’s kingdom; but as a rule a prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller.”
Thus, the biblical idea of a prophet as a forthteller rather than a foreteller suggests that prophets may lack specific knowledge of the future. Certainly predicting future events was at most a less significant part of the biblical prophetic office. This seems consistent with what we read throughout scripture. For instance, consider the timing of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Paul evidently believed that the return of Jesus was imminent, as implied in 1 Thessalonians and elsewhere. Similarly, early Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, believed that the Second Coming was similarly imminent.
For instance, Joseph Smith taught in D&C 130:14-17: “I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.”
From the scriptural record in each Gospel account, it seems that the earliest Christians were surprised, even shocked by the death and also the resurrection of Jesus. The disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, for instance, seemed befuddled by the entire situation. At the time, neither of those events seemed intuitive or predictable to these earliest Christians. Only in hindsight, after the resurrection, did they see Christ in the Old Testament.
More recently, in his opening message to General Conference in April 2020, President Russell M. Nelson stated, “Little did I know, when I promised you at the October 2019 general conference that this April conference would be “memorable” and “unforgettable,” that speaking to a visible congregation of fewer than 10 people would make this conference so memorable and unforgettable for me! Yet the knowledge that you are participating by electronic transmission, and the choir’s beautiful rendition of “It Is Well with My Soul,” bring great comfort to my soul.”
While perhaps not extremely explicit, it indicates that President Nelson had at least a limited knowledge of the future, and perhaps did not foresee the pandemic before it occurred. Yes, many church members point to the blessing of a “home-centered, church-supported” church that was taught and in some ways, implemented shortly prior to the pandemic. Latter-day Saints can be grateful for the providential blessings from God without insisting that prophets had perfect clairvoyance into the future. All that is necessary is for prophets to discern and follow the will of God. But understanding all of the future implications is neither necessary nor realistic, and that perspective neither diminishes the blessings of following prophetic counsel nor the power, love, majesty, and foresight of loving Heavenly Parents who work through limited mortals to accomplish their work.
Similarly, we could point to prophetic wrestlings with the Priesthood ban, particularly by David O. McKay, as well as explanations and prognostications provided by Bruce R. McConkie which, after the June 1978 revelation was received, he explicitly repudiated.
These and other examples highlight the limited nature of prophetic insight into specific future events. This principle can help Latter-day Saints better understand prophetic limitations while not discounting the blessings of following prophetic counsel. In other words, specific future foreknowledge is not necessary for prophetic direction to be inspired, and for individuals to be blessed by following prophetic counsel.
No comments:
Post a Comment