The Prophetic Burden

Recently, I've been pondering some of the writings of modern LDS prophets, and the concept of the 'prophetic burden' came to mind. (You may have to excuse the somewhat stream-of-consciousness flow of what follows...)

It's very difficult to be a prophet, of course...so much so that I doubt anyone who thinks seriously about it would ever aspire to be one.

First of all, the burden of example is a big one: with the prophetic mantle comes the expectation of perfection...without the benefit of actually BEING perfect. A prophet is expected to be a perfect example of Christ-like behavior in every way, and he knows that every word and action will be reported on and analyzed by those inside and outside of the Church, with any mistake or imperfection creating “crises of faith” for believers and fodder for anti-Church types for generations. Every word he speaks must be carefully thought out beforehand, for he knows that, again, many inside and outside the Church treat each sentence as prophetic inspiration from God (whether it is or not) to be either followed or attacked.

It is the way prophets speak that I've spent time pondering recently. Reading the words of the prophets (or apostles) in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or in any of the writings of prophets of the current dispensation, one will usually note how straight-forward, blunt, and black-and-white many of the statements seem, often to the point of sounding harsh and unforgiving. Reading pronouncements of doctrine from the writings of Joseph F. Smith, Harold B. Lee, or Spencer W. Kimball (just to name a few) will often have very clear, bold statements of what is 'right' and 'wrong', seemingly without any gray area in between. Of course, people love to find gray areas and amateur philosophers have been outlining "But, what about this...or this?" situations for years for virtually every commandment or statement of church policy. Yet, you rarely seem those gray areas given much official attention when it comes to doctrinal pronouncements, which has led to the occasional criticism of Church leaders for being too black-and-white, and often 'out of touch' with the complex situations we might find ourselves in.

Yet, my thought is: what choice do they have?

Prophets are not naive or stupid. On the contrary, they have, in modern times, a large wealth of life experiences (read: they're old...) and while they might not keep track of popular culture as well as modern teens might, I don't buy the 'out of touch' argument. They have lived through virtually all the standard life challenges everyone else faces in regards to growing up, raising a family, and serving faithfully in the Church, and I think they have as much feel as anyone for the complex situations that men and women face in their lives. Yet, under the 'give-an-inch-and-they'll-take-a-mile' philosophy, they know that a softer, more nuanced approach to proclaiming gospel principles--appreciated by some, perhaps--would also result in more people taking those principles lightly since they aren't being emphasized as clearly and directly as before.

Example: Church leaders used to emphasize the 'No R-rated movies' philosophy. Then, upon finding that Church members were taking that to mean any movie not rated R was 'okay', rephrased it to say 'avoid movies that don't reflect Church standards regardless of rating'. That, of course, was taken as opening up the possibility of some R-rated movies being okay, which many Church members promptly embraced, even though, "Passion of the Christ" aside, I have yet to see or hear about any R-rated movies that do, in fact, reflect Church standards...

Prophets are in a bind, essentially: Emphasize the doctrines plainly and harshly with no gray, and you’ll offend people…or, discuss the doctrines ‘grayly’ and softly and people will tune it out and be less likely to follow. It’s similar to what Mormon complained about in Moroni 9:

“Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it.”

Take Alma explaining the significance of the law of chastity to his son Corianton, for example:

Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
…
And now, my son, I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime. I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good.
But behold, ye cannot hide your crimes from God; and except ye repent they will stand as a testimony against you at the last day.

Now my son, I would that ye should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes, but cross yourself in all these things; for except ye do this ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. Oh, remember, and take it upon you, and cross yourself in these things.

(Alma 39: 5-9)

Pretty strong words, you say? Too harsh? Perhaps…but if Alma had phrased it more gently and forgivingly (“Well…that probably wasn’t the best thing to do, although I know how tough sexual temptation can be. Try to do better next time…”) would Corianton (and those who read this passage in the future) be more or less likely to commit sexual sins in the future? Sometimes, you may need to speak with ‘much sharpness’ in order for the listener to take you seriously...

I have no evidence other than my personal feelings to go on, of course, but I’d be willing to bet that if you were to talk with any past prophet privately, one-on-one, off-the-record about a specific issue, they’d tell you they realize that it isn’t quite as simple as public statements may make it sound. Yet, the purpose of a prophet isn’t to “make friends“, it’s to testify of Christ and His gospel. It’s possible that their natural personality and opinion may be quite different than their ‘public persona’ in many areas, but I believe they naturally feel compelled as part of the prophetic calling to always err on the side of caution—overstating and oversimplifying things rather than sound muddled and ambivalent. Having people think you’re a mean, old man while still being compelled to be obedient for the most part is always better than people thinking you’re a nice guy while rampantly breaking the commandments thinking 'it's not that big a deal'…

[One last note: I find President Hinckley to be quite adept at finding ways of phrasing things to be more pleasant sounding and less harsh compared with his prophetic predecessors, while still explaining doctrines clearly and without compromise. I’m sure it’s not a coincidence that his background is in the field of public relations…]