Samuel and Nephi
Posted on January 27, 2010
Filed Under Economy, Intelligent Design, Politics, Reason, Science | Leave a Comment
Samuel and Nephi
My daily Book of Mormon reading is currently in the book of Helaman. This morning I was effectively slapped in the face by one of the most obvious examples we have in scripture illustrating the difference between prophets who are called and given the gift of prophecy for the delivering of important instructions and messages, and prophets who are similarly called, but also have the mantle of ecclesiastical authority for the administration of the ordinances of salvation. Granted, there is a thin line between them, which is why in the case of the former, the Lord always calls someone righteous and obedient enough not to overstep it.
Beginning in chapter 13, just prior to the chapter title, it reads as follows:
The prophecy of Samuel, the Lamanite, to the Nephites. Comprising chapters 13 through 15 inclusive.
Then, in the actual heading for chapter 13 it speaks of Samuel’s prophecies to the Nephites concerning their impending destruction if they do not repent. The pursuant chapters tell the story of Samuel’s calling by God, the assignment he is given, his prophecies about the birth of the Savior, the destruction of the Nephites, and the subsequent reaction of the Nephites.
There is much to be learned from these chapters regarding the nature of the calling of prophets and God’s methods and order of delivering important messages to His children.
In the opening verses of Helaman 13, we learn that Samuel was already a righteous man because, as far as we know, he took it upon himself to preach repentance to the Nephites. Being a Lamanite, he obviously had become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and was more than likely led by the Spirit to begin preaching repentance. The point of all this is that Samuel was obviously a righteous man and obedient to the direction he was given by the Holy Ghost. For a Lamanite to place himself, for the sake of preaching repentance, in such peril among those who were historically the sworn enemies of the Lamanites must have taken exceptional courage and faithfulness. Surely he must have thought that his very life could be in danger, but he went anyway.
Meeting with no success in spiritually reaching the Nephites, however, he decides to return back to his own land; but the Lord has other plans for him. In verse 3, the Lord speaks to him and tells him to return to the Nephites and prophesy according to the dictates of the Spirit. Being obedient, Samuel returns. He is turned away at the gate, so to speak, meaning that he isn’t even allowed to enter back into the city.
Samuel knows he was given a divine charge, however, so he doesn’t just give up and leave. He climbs up on the wall of the city and shouts the message he is given by the Lord to the Nephites. In the end, some of them believe him, but most of them get angry and actually try to kill him before he jumps down and flees, never to be heard from again as far as we know.
Now, this isn’t intended to be recounting of the story of Samuel, but rather an illustration of an important point of understanding. The interesting thing to note here, at the end of Samuel’s part of the story (as we read in chapter 16) is that those of the Nephites who believe him seek to be baptized, but who do they seek out? Not Samuel–the prophet who delivered the message that led to their conversion–but Nephi, the prophet who held the authority to perform the ordinances of salvation.
So this becomes a pretty obvious example (one of many, I would argue) that the Lord calls whomever He will when He needs them and by whatever means He deems necessary. Their calling is always given explicitly, including the constraints and limits of their authority. Though these chapters don’t explicitly record what the Lord said to Samuel in calling him, it’s safe to assume that either he was told very explicitly and those specific instructions were simply abridged out of the Book of Mormon record that we have (it is an abridgement after all, don’t forget), or at least that Samuel understood the nature of his own calling and the limits of his own authority. These assumptions are safe to make because he at no time tries to gather followers to himself, he does not invite them to be baptized by him, and when the converts seek to be baptized, he is nowhere to be found (as far as the record shows).
So what do we learn from this story?
At this particular time in history, there were at least two prophets: Samuel and Nephi. Only one of them—Nephi—had authority to baptize and administer the ordinances of the gospel. Samuel understood this. Still, Samuel’s calling was as a prophet. He was specifically called and given authority to deliver a message to the world (specifically the Nephites). This is not a case of someone receiving the gift of prophecy for their own benefit; this is a very obvious case of someone being given a stewardship that pertains to a broader collection of God’s children, but is still limited in scope not to include religious ordinances.
Now, it’s pretty apparent that Samuel’s message was very much “religious” in nature. He prophesied specifically about repentance and the birth of the Savior. So this doesn’t exactly match up perfectly with the movement of The Higher Law and those who have been called to start it—or does it?
Much of the fear and objection being directed at the movement and the author of the blog is that it claims to be non-religious while dealing with religious things (like visions, revelations, facsimile 2, etc.); and yet, apart from the source of the movement, which is claimed to be from translation of facsimile 2, and the experiences that are part of translation (according to the author), there is no religious instruction whatsoever in any portion of the messages on the blog. There is no call for “followers,” there is no claim of religious authority, there is no evidence of what would normally be associated with apostate or sectarian movements (i.e. subjugation of followers to the “new prophet,” calls for sacrificial offerings of money, property, etc.) , and there is nothing in the messages that detracts or changes the core doctrines of the LDS church in the least. The author is very adamant that his calling is non-religious, by design, for the purpose of uniting the people of the Earth as much as possible in a common goal, which is more the opposition of political and economic tyranny than anything religious. In fact, the notion of religion—or at least any one religion—is conspicuously absent from the messages except whatever connections we make ourselves.
On the contrary, consider Samuel. The prophet of the church in his day was Nephi (or as close an equation as one can make in those circumstances); yet he was called as a prophet to deliver an expressly religious message, unbeknownst to Nephi (as far as we know). Even if Nephi was aware of Samuel (and I wouldn’t doubt it), he made no comment of it and Samuel’s calling was not given through Nephi, but by God directly to Samuel for a specific, limited purpose; but that purpose was still very much “religious.” (I quote that term because the reality is our historical human compartmentalizing of religion, science, etc. is actually very myopic and narrow-minded). So in comparison, according to the objections being raised on The Higher Law, Samuel actually would have to be considered to have been more dangerous than the author of the blog. He would have been the one on the road to apostasy (not if, but when see comment #8), because he was claiming prophetic authority that stretched into the realm of religion.
The point of all this should be clear: While there is only one prophet, seer and revelator for the Church on the Earth at any given time, by no means does that preclude the possibility of other prophetic and divine callings with specific intention and limitations, for specific purposes that apply to a community or the world at large (not just the individual). Further, considering the consistent and overt specificity of the author in expressing non-religious intent and scope, I would think that he would be considered even less of a danger to anything pertaining to the LDS church, including personal testimony of it.
Comments
Leave a Reply