- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve never heard of Huldah, and would love another thread to learn more about her. Neither have I. We’re probably far from alone in this. Hmm, I would say Yes Deborah was a prophetess in the sense of small p, but I also believe yes she was Judge over Israel. She judged Israel, they came up to her for judgement. Not just one part of Israel to, I doubt it was just one part, its just a large part of our scriptures about women I’m grateful to have. I tend to think optimistically that she was Prophetess, though she did not hold the office of a apostle, who says she didn’t have any official capacity to act in, or who says that keys have to be restricted to just the male priesthood line? I think there is much about Prophets that we just don’t understand. Just my personal opinion. I am irked by any statement that seems to me to degrade who Deborah was and what she did. She was both Judge and Prophetess. That is a huge deal. And I believe she must have had some authority upon her to do so.
There’s another dilemma I’ve just thought of. In the Bible, there are frequent periods in which they are several Prophets, big-p. Now we have the idea that there’s only one at a time.
Organizationally, “prophet” meant something very different in the OT than it does now, when the society itself was set up very differently. There really wasn’t a Prophet among prophets in those days, except when the political leadership endorsed one particular person – which happened occasionally. It appears to have been a case of one Prophet or multiple prophets in the absence of a Prophet – and even that is a generalization. That’s easy to forget, especially if we forget that “the same organization that existed in the primitive church” is about the NT, post-Jesus days. It also is instructive that, to the best of my recollection, there are almost no references to “The Prophet” in the NT. Rather, the organization appears to have been a council of prophets – similar to our current construct (the Q12 and FP all being prophets), with a Presiding Apostle being seen as “The Prophet”.
In the context of the OT, Lehi’s claim to have been called as a prophet makes perfect sense and has historical precedence. Likewise, it makes perfect sense now, given our own definition of prophecy, for pretty much any member to claim she received revelation and could provide prophecy – but it doesn’t make sense for that same member to claim Prophetic authority to insist others accept or follow that prophecy or revelation. Different cultures, different applications.
Different then NT and Modern times yes, but I don’t think that means she had any less authority upon her as Judge of her people, then any male counterpart of hers had. And she seems if she wasn’t the ONLY leader of Israel at that time, to be the central leader. Which is what makes Deborah such a huge story to me, even if it spans 2 chapters only in our current scriptures. Yes of course organziationally all of this was different. And of course the primitive church means, the Church christ set up, but we do not even know ALL about the church christ set up, only we have a limited view of how it is. Cultural practice like always sweeps into every dispensition, now as always.
Of course getting back to Deborah, I would sure like to have that be my Temple name, once I go through in a week. (hmm is that sacrilegious to say? I don’t think so.
:shifty: )wonderingcurrent, just to be clear, I wasn’t downplaying Deborah’s position or authority in ANY way. I really like her story and wish we had more like that, since I am sure there are plenty – in both the OT and NT (and in our own more recent history). I was responding solely to SamBee’s comment before mine.
Oh, okay. Well I wasn’t saying you where downplaying it. Hmm, maybe by my comment I kind of was, I didn’t mean that. Anyway, I wish there was more too, Oh boy, I’m going to love the Millenium and many many writings of women that will be restored. Can’t wait. (Wish it would come sooner).
observant wrote Quote:The Gospel Doctrine teacher this week made the comment that she is not a prophet and she was promptly corrected by a fellow who said, no, she was a prophet and could receive revelation relevant to her and those in her stewardship even if she didn’t have the authority to receive revelation for the church as a whole. I immediately thought of this thread. Didn’t really feel the need to add my thoughts as the other guy pretty much had it covered.
It is very interesting. I don’t generally agree with Mormon Doctrine, however the section on prophets is very nicely organized. It states, “Those who hold offices in the Church, however, should be prophets as pertaining to their own affairs, and the affairs of the organization over which they preside. A quorum president should be a prophet to his quorum, a bishop to his ward, a stake president to his stake.” Whenever I teach I tell members of the Church that it was Moses’ goal that all should be prophets. We all can be prophets in our spheres of influence.
Additionally, I liked this qualifier for a prophet that comes from Revelation 19:10. “for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Mormon Doctrine states, “Nothing more than the testimony of Jesus is needed to make a person a prophet; and if this revealed knowledge has not been received, a person is not a prophet, no matter how many other talents or gifts he may have. But when a person has received revelation from the Spirit certifying to the divinity of Christ, he is then in a position to press forward in righteousness and gain other revelations including those which foretell future events.” (McConkie 1958, p. 544)
Old-Timer wrote, Quote:That’s easy to forget, especially if we forget that “the same organization that existed in the primitive church” is about the NT, post-Jesus days. It also is instructive that, to the best of my recollection, there are almost no references to “The Prophet” in the NT. Rather, the organization appears to have been a council of prophets – similar to our current construct (the Q12 and FP all being prophets), with a Presiding Apostle being seen as “The Prophet”.
It is interesting that when the Apostle Paul talks about the Church organization in Ephesians 2:20 that he compares it to a building built upon the apostles and prophets. What has always struck me is how it places the apostles first, and then prophets second. The word “apostle” comes from the Greek word meaning “one who is sent.” What is interesting is that in NT times the word could also refer to men that weren’t necessarily of the Quorum of the 12. We don’t know for certain if Barnabas and Paul were of the Quorum of the 12, but both of them are referred to as apostles. I read a scholar who suggested that members of the seventy (see Luke 10:1) were sent by Christ as well and that Paul and Barnabas could have been members of the seventy that were also called Apostles. I know this seems confusing, but I think the church organization in Christ’s day was more flexible since it was so short lived. For instance the quorum of the 12 didn’t last beyond the first century AD. Luke is the only gospel writer who even mentions the seventy, exclusively to Ch. 10. This is probably because Christian tradition numbers Luke among the seventy. Obviously a seventy would talk about the seventy.
Another point I would like to make is that Paul refers to himself as the least of the apostles and one who is not worthy to be called an apostle. I think he refers to himself as such because of being present at the stoning of Stephen, who was one of the presidents of the seventy, but who saw God the Father and Jesus Christ while he was being stoned. So, Stephen was a prophet as well even though in our present-day mindset, “he was just a seventy.” (See Acts 7:55-56). This leads me to the next point I would like to mention: The Seventy. For instance the man who prophesied unto Paul, fortelling a famine (Acts 11:28), and also Paul’s imprisonment (Acts 21:10) who is mentioned as the prophet Agabus. Agabus is also referred to in traditional non-LDS sources as one of the seventy disciples of Christ. So, when reading the NT the minor apostles that weren’t mentioned among the original twelve may be of the seventy, and the prophets mentioned in the NT may be among the seventy. This leads me to believe that prophet is not as exclusive as we use it today. The term prophet was meant to be more generally applied throughout the church membership.
I will make one more distinction from the Church of former days from the Church of Latter-days. In our culture we use the term President for the Prophet and his two counselors. In the former days Paul referred to James, Cephas (aramaic name for rock/stone = Peter), and John as pillars (see Galatians 2:9). If you go back to the building analogy of the apostles and prophets (the foundation), the pillars (first presidency) serve as the main support of the building. Paul is very consistent with sticking to his building analogy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.