If we look at Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph as 4 generations, then Moses comes along 400 years later, surely there were more than 7 people in the Moses to Joseph in the priesthood line. If we look at Abraham, Esaias, Gad, Jeremy, Elihu, Caleb, Jethro. If we assume that Isaac corresponds to Esaias, Jacob ~ Jeremy, then Elihu corresponds to Joseph. Caleb would have had to span 400 years for Jethro to give Moses the priesthood. I don’t think it is unreasonable at all to assume this line must be broken. Even if we assume that all after Abraham spanned the 400 years, then each man would have been greater than 66 to pass it to an infant–a highly suspect proposition.

I wasn’t trying to connect your statements to modern genocides, but there are people who think God controls everything, and he must have had a hand in these genocides. Certainly many anti-semites thought the Jews were getting what they deserved, while some Jews and Christians probably believed that “Gods ways are mysteries” in allowing the Holocaust to happen. Frankly, I think God is much less involved in our lives than we think, and he allows all sorts of bad things to happen. If we were in charge, certainly we wouldn’t allow these genocides to happen.

Yes it is unfortunate that the Bible does not contain more information on gentile prophets. I think Israel-centrism is the best explanation for this. When we look at a larger canon we do dramatically increase the number of gentile prophets. The Esaias line is at least four more (and probably entirely) gentile prophets. Esaias, Gad, and Jeremy are necessarily gentile. They predate or are contemporary with Jacob. Jethro is a Midiante and not generally included in the Jewish list of gentile prophets either. It is improbable that the intervening two priesthood holders were Israelites who gained the priesthood from gentiles and finally passed it to gentile (who then just passed it to an Israelite.) This seems to show that when we have a less Israel-centric source the number of gentile prophets increases. With the Biblical and and D&C lists we have thirteen. Of these I’m comfortable with all the D&C list, Beor, Balaam, and Job. I don’t find Job’s “friends” entirely convincing. No, these examples don’t fall between Balaam and Joseph Smith. During this particular period Israel was the remaining chosen people of God. If there hadn’t been a period like this,there would be no folk concept of an exclusive people of God to apply anachronistically.

I’m aware of your opinion on the destruction of the Canaanites. I was not trying to convince you of the justice of God requiring their destruction. I did want to give you some idea of how my understanding of the story of Balaam is interconnected with supports my understanding of other scriptural events.

I’m not sure why you connected my statements with modern genocides. I have never claimed that God required those. Those are all examples of wicked men acting on their basest prejudices. I thought it was fairly clear that I was referring to Moses and Joshua’s actions in conquering Canaan. (It was a nice illustration of Godwin’s law though. Thanks.)

I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that the Canaanites were not more wicked than the Israelites. Even when large groups of Israel had apostatized we still have pockets of believers larger than those among the Canaanites.

I am aware of the variety of ways that priesthood has been transfered historically and the evolution of priesthood hierarchy. I fairly sure that the current discussion hasn’t touched on any particular mechanism nor do I think either of our positions depended a particular mechanism. I don’t see how it directly bares on the current discussion.

I’m not opposed to the idea of a gentile prophet, but here’s my problem. (1) There are so few of them, and we really know only about Balaam and Job, (perhaps Melchizedek, though he seems to be a Hebrew too.) (2) Why haven’t others come along in the last 4000 years? (3) The bible is so Israel-centric, that it seems to discount the idea that a prophet could come from anywhere else. Now, I guess this could be seen as Jewish bias, but if there was some sort of gentile prophet, then the line seems to have been annihilated around the time of Balaam, just as the Nephites were annihilated.

Surely non-LDS are going to have a difficult time swallowing this Esaias priesthood line, especially in light of the fact that the laying on of hands for priesthood authority doesn’t begin until Acts. In the Old Testament, it seems that prophets were called by God, rather than an un-ending chain of priesthood authority like the modern LDS church has. It seems to me that OT scholars believe prophets like Amos, Elijah, and others never really believed in an Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood as modern LDS conceive. I don’t know if you’ve read Origins of Power by Michael Quinn, but he seems to paint the picture that early LDS priesthood was much less structured from 1830-1835 than what we would view today. Quinn seems to indicate that the Melchizedek priesthood wasn’t restored until after the church was organized, which is why the date in the D&C is so fuzzy. (See my post on when the MP was restored.)

Joseph’s initial call as a prophet was much less structured, and seems to follow the calls of Alma, Amos and Samuel (both in the Bible and the Lamanite.) The priesthood was certainly much less institutionalized. Perhaps Balaam had a similar call, as did Jethro. The fact that D&C 84 leaves so many gaps between Abraham, Esaias, and Jethro could indicate that the chain is a broken chain, and these are just the major priesthood holders over the centuries.

As to the reasons why you like your Balaam version better, let me comment on them.

“It provides a framework to explain why God at one time requires the annihilation of a culture and at others requires patience.

I don’t think God requires annihilation of a culture. He permits it to happen as in the cases of Rwanda, Nazi Germany, Pompei, Jericho, and Gomorrah, but I don’t think God inherently believes and chooses to destroy civilizations. I think men falsely attribute these things to God.

It accounts for the similarity between Canaanite and Israelite worship that modern archaeology is discovering.

I didn’t get into this with Tara. I’m not sure how she would react to similarities between Canaanite and Israelite worship. It would be a two-edged sword for her argument. But I agree that there are pretty significant similarities between worship practices of the 2 groups.

It gives a more palatable reason for the specific destruction of the Canaanites. They had apostatized and been warned of destruction by their own prophets long before the eventual invasion of the Israelites.

I disagree. Later Israelites engaged in idol worship, prostitution, and child sacrifice which is why prophets like Jeremiah condemned it so much. Perhaps you may say that the 10 Tribes were annihilated for wickedness, yet Christians and Jews still claim they’ll return. If God is no respecter of persons, he should give Jericho, Sodom, and Gomorrah a chance to return as well. I don’t find any explanations for mass destruction as palatable.

It explains why Nephi would think righteousness was the only dimension that differentiated early Israel from the Canaanites. The Canaanites were not any less than the Israelites in prophetic manifestations. They were just more wicked.

Israelites after the time of Moses were just as wicked as the early Canaanites Moses and Joshua destroyed.

Finally, it makes sense to me that we should expect to see a gentile prophet that is also a fallen prophet.”

I would agree with this statement more strongly if there were evidence of at least 1 gentile prophet in the last 4000 years (between Balaam and Joseph Smith.)

(FireTag, if you’re reading this, I want you to know that LDS D&C 84 is the same as CoC D&C 83. I am curious if you have a take on this gentile priesthood line.)

Here’s a more fleshed out version of how I understand the story of Balaam:

Balaam, the son of a prophet, receives the priesthood and becomes a prophet among his own people. I don’t know which line his priesthood comes through. There is not enough information in the story. He could be a branch of the Abrahamic line, he could be a branch of the Esaias line found in D&C or he could be part of a third line parallel to both Esaias and Abraham.

Balaam’s people (and the surrounding tribes) are generally wicked (as most are) and slowly apostatize introducing multiple deities into their worship and other corruptions. These new gods are probably introduced to Canaan from or in imitation of Egypt which apostatized much earlier. Balaam continues to worship the true God and because of the power of his prophecies, is known among his people and the surrounding tribes (even though they do not follow him.)

The Israelites leave Egypt and eventually begin conquering the apostate Canaanites. Interestingly, this did not start as an extermination of polytheists. Moses’ original demand was that the Israelites be allowed to worship their God in the desert. This parallels Balaam’s relationship with the rulers in his area. Neither Balaam nor Moses is hostile to polytheists as long as he is not impeded in his worship of God. For Balaam, this never happens. For Moses, Pharaoh’s insistence that the Israelites not worship their God precipitates a crisis. The result of this crisis is that the Israelite will have a new relationship with polytheists. Within the land the Lord gives them, Israel will not allow worship of other gods (what constitutes other gods does change over time but this is the general rule.) This makes it much more unlikely (but not fool proof) that Israel will be ruled by someone hostile towards God. The new command does not change how they interact with polytheists outside their borders.

While the Israelites establish their new monotheistic nation, they encounter the remnants of true worship in Canaan, Balaam. While this is improbable, it is not impossible. Moses’ own priesthood came from such a line among the Midianties. That there could be other pockets of believers is obviously possible.

Balak, afraid of the Israelites, seeks help wherever he can find it. He sends princes and gifts to Balaam in a effort to get him to come and curse the Israelites. God initially tells Balaam that he cannot go to Balak or curse the Israelites. After a second more lavish entreaty by Balak, Balaam asks again and God tells him that he can go but he must do as he is commanded (he can’t curse the Israelites.) This has obvious parallels with the story of the 116 manuscript pages. Both Balaam and Joseph ask repeatedly for something repeatedly (at the insistence of someone they view as powerful.) Finally God relents and allows them to do what they want but with restrictions. Neither story ends well (Balaam’s is admittedly worse.)

While Balaam travels to meet Balak, God sends His destroying angel. The angel reminds Balaam of God’s displeasure at Balaam’s insistence in going to Balak. Balaam begins to second guess his decision and tells the angel that he will not go. The angel tells Balaam that now he must go and do as God commands him.

Balaam ask Balak to make the necessary preparations to perform sacrifices to God prior to pronouncing His will. Balak hopes this will be what he wants, a curse on Israel (he is obeying the command of a prophet and making sacrifice to God.) Balaam performs the sacrifice but then he blesses Israel. Balak is upset but hopes that by continuing to follow the directions of Balaam he can get a different result. Balaam makes two more sacrifices each with the same result: Israel is blessed.

Balaam has done everything that God asked him at this point. If this were all he did, I think we could expect that he would not have been killed when the Israelites invaded. But, Balaam feels obligated to Balak. He accepted all of Balak’s gifts and did not deliver what Balak asked. Balaam knows he can’t curse Israel with any real force so he chooses to exploit the reason why God chose Israel over the Canaanites; Israel is more righteous. Balaam probably already realizes that the Canaanites are past the point where they would repent. Balak had offered (through Balaam) sacrifice to God and it was insufficient. If Balaam can’t make the Canaanites righteous enough to avoid destruction, he’ll try to make Israel wicked enough that they are no longer favored. He suggests that the Canaanites send their most beautiful women to cause the Israelites to sin (both fornicate and follow other gods.)
Balaam is remembered as wicked because of this final act. All of the references to him as a wicked man are in connection with either priestcraft or fornication. He is never mentioned in connection with false claims to the priesthood or any variety of divination.

Admittedly, there are a number of difficulties with this story. Most of these are points that your version deals with in a more satisfactory manner.

Traditionally we only expect to see one legitimate line of priesthood at any one time.

We expect prophets to be more righteous than us.

We would like the commands of God to remain the same across time.

There are a number of reasons why I am inclined to accept these difficulties. Some of these are central to my understanding of the story and others (which I’ll list last) are only incidental.

I think reevaluating traditional ideas about priesthood according to scriptural sources will give a better understanding of how God operates. Your LDS-RLDS example is unnecessary and contrived given that the scriptures contain legitimate parallel priesthood lines. Both the D&C and The Book of Mormon give examples of legitimate parallel priesthood lineages. D&C gives the parallel lines of Abraham and Esaias. These two lines are parallel for at least three generations (Abraham-Isaac-Jacob on the Abraham line.) The Abraham-Esaias parallel is interesting because God himself starts one of them from scratch even when Abraham is available to pass on the priesthood (he was available to bless Esaias.) The Book of Mormon has the parallel lines of Mosiah and Alma. The Mosiah-Alma parallel is especially interesting because when they reencounter the one another, the line with the more tenuous claim becomes the leader of the combined church (Alma’s line had experienced a total apostasy.) I would prefer to have a single explanation that can account for all of these anomalies in the traditional view of the priesthood. This does not mean that I think current exclusive claims to the priesthood are false. I think that eventually all of the lines coalesced and/or apostatized and a single priesthood line was restored.

I too expect that prophets would be more righteous than the average person. This is only natural given the greater spiritual manifestations they receive. But, I also know this natural inclination is flawed. My judgments will not always coincide with God’s. There is insufficient information in any scriptural account to make definitive judgments about personal righteousness. The only exception to this is when God pronounces judgment and it is recorded in scripture.

The commands of God across time do seem inconsistent at first glance. When considering the context in which they are given, I think most (if not all) of these inconsistencies fall away. Often what we see as new commands or changes are required too address new threats. In this specific instance, Pharaoh takes a hostile stance towards the Israelite God. Prior to this there was little reason to self-segregate. I think the scriptures bare this out.

Incidentally, I prefer this version of the story.

It provides a framework to explain why God at one time requires the annihilation of a culture and at others requires patience.

It accounts for the similarity between Canaanite and Israelite worship that modern archaeology is discovering.

It gives a more palatable reason for the specific destruction of the Canaanites. They had apostatized and been warned of destruction by their own prophets long before the eventual invasion of the Israelites.

It explains why Nephi would think righteousness was the only dimension that differentiated early Israel from the Canaanites. The Canaanites were not any less than the Israelites in prophetic manifestations. They were just more wicked.

Finally, it makes sense to me that we should expect to see a gentile prophet that is also a fallen prophet. We know from later events that eventually all the gentile nations have apostatized and Israel is God’s only chosen people. All of their prophets either died with out passing along their calling or they themselves apostatized. To me this means that we could expect to see a higher incidence of apostasy among gentile prophets. So, for me, finding a fallen gentile prophet is quite unsurprising.

Last Christmas, I’ve mentioned the story of the 3 Wise Men who visited Jesus, and I think this bears some remarkable similarities to the Balaam story. From the DVD I mentioned, it seems that these men were Persian (Iranian) priests who practiced the Zoroastrian religion and were heavily influenced by astrology. They were monotheistic, and had some messianic beliefs. The religion was founded by a prophet named Zoroaster. The Magi may have been some sort of diviners and/or sorcerers.

Now they came bearing gifts for Jesus, and I do find some really cool symbolism in the gifts (as I mentioned in the post), but as non-Jews it seems a strange story to me as well. I have to quote my previous comment, because it seems very relevant.

“It is quite interesting to me that the Magi, or Wise men, were not Jews. How would we feel if a psychic like Jeanne Dixon, proclaimed Thomas S Monson as a true prophet? My guess is that we (as a church) would be uncomfortable with it. Would we want to include this kind of recommendation in the D&C, or P of GP? To me, this is analogous to the Magi’s recommendation in the New Testament. Frankly, I think most Christians take the Wise Men story at face value, but it isn’t quite so simple as that.

It kind of reminds me of the story of Balaam–was he a prophet or not? He was not a jew, so didn’t have the priesthood, and he never claimed to worship the Jewish God…. (That’s quite an unusual story as well.)”

My understanding of the story of Balaam (with some of my speculation thrown in) goes like this. Moses and company were wiping out some cities. They asked the Kings of Midian and Moab if they could pass through peacefully. I think the kings were suspicious that Moses might attack, and so they sought some sort of protection. Balaam was known as a man who could curse and bless. The kings wanted a curse on Israel, and asked Balaam to perform the duty, as he had probably done previously for other kings in the area.

My guess is that Balaam knew the reputation of Israel’s army, and realized that Midian and Moab couldn’t win, so he tried to get out of cursing Israel. I don’t know if he had a vision or not–perhaps he did, or perhaps he was hoping that by blessing Israel, Balak would leave him alone. Spies from Israel probably heard the story about Balaam blessing Israel, and thought, “Wow, what a cool story”, and it became a legendary story, in much the same way as Our Lady of Fatima did with the Catholic Church.

When Balak persisted in wanting Balaam to curse Israel, then Balaam figured if he could get Israel to sin against their god, perhaps that could help Moab and Midian. So, in my mind, Balaam is never really a friend of Israel. He is always trying to please Balak, and I’m not seeing any real devotion to Yahweh. The angel and donkey story are just weird stories, but I can see why Israel would jump on the stories–here’s a non-Jew who at face value seems to support Israel. But I think the story is deeper than face value.

If I were to compare Moses and Balaam’s dueling priesthood lines, I think a modern day equivalent would be the LDS and RLDS churches. I’ll try to come up with a modern day scenario. Let’s say that Brigham Young and company built a destroying army, and were threatening communities in the west. Perhaps the Protestant Governors of Texas and California are a little worried about the Mormons, and asks the RLDS president (Joseph III) to curse Brigham. JS3 refuses to do it at first, but the governors persist. So, JS3 says, “hey, send your beautiful women to the Mormons and get them to lust after your women. Make sure they want to marry them, and have the women refuse to get married in the temple, and cause the Mormons to commit adultery/fornication. Then God will reject them as a people, and you’ll win.”

I think that is a pretty good parallel to the Balaam story. Mormons reject JS3, as not a legitimate prophet, but would be impressed when JS 3 “blesses” the Mormons instead of cursing them as the governors asked. As JS son, perhaps JS3 can legitimately claim some priesthood authority–after all JS prophesied that JS3 would lead the church some day, and even Brigham Young knew that. But if JS3 is going to purposely try to cause Mormons to sin, isn’t that incongruent with the office of a prophet? I think Mormons and non-Mormons would easily question his prophetic calling. I don’t think Mormons consider JS3 was ever a legitimate prophet, and if he were to issue a guidance to sin, I think Mormons would even further disbelieve 3 was a prophet. He couldn’t be fallen, because Mormons would say he never was true in the first place.

I’ve been listening to a Yale course on the OT. One of the things the instructor said is that the Bible is full of contradictions. The characters are messy, and aren’t really models of righteousness. I get that. I’ve posted on problems I have with the conduct of Abraham, Joshua, Jacob, Elijah, and Jonah. They all did some things that left me scratching my head.

Jonah is probably the most flawed of this list. Here is someone we call a prophet, and yet he first runs away, then after he preaches repentance to the Ninevites, he hopes they’ll be destroyed by fire and brimstone anyway, and goes up to watch the city burst into flames. But God instead sunburns his head after the gourd dies, and teaches him a lesson. It’s easy to look at Jonah and say, “you call that a prophet?” He sure doesn’t act like we would expect Pres Monson to act, but the Bible is all about God using flawed characters. So I can expect that a prophet has flaws. It doesn’t appear that the Ninevites converted to Judaism, but God still loves them (unlike the Jericho-ites), so Jonah and Joshua are real contrasts.

But it seems to me that the first commandment is “thou shalt have no gods before me”, and the Bible consistently rejects polytheism. With such a strong emphasis by all prophets from Moses to Malachi, it seems awfully strange to me that Balaam didn’t have a problem with Balak’s polytheism. Pretty much the whole Bible is a constant treatise on how bad idol worship is, yet Balaam never seems to view it as sinful as Moses did.

The Biblical story of Joseph is an interesting story, because it seems like he was always a good guy. Perhaps he outwardly observed the religion of Egypt, but God had a greater purpose for him, and he never seems to worship Egyptian gods, The fact that he was surrounded by these polythesists was a necessary evil in order to save his family, but Joseph still shows his righteousness in resisting their religion. His righteousness is shown even in the story of Potiphar’s wife, “How can I do this great wickedness?”

Joseph had visions of saving his family prior to his slavery in Egypt, and it seems that Joseph was always chosen by God. He kept his dream interpreting capabilities in Egypt, because God specifically loved Joseph. Joseph never seems to abandon his religion. The cub-bearer remembers Joseph is a Hebrew. He recounts the dream he had in prison with Joseph. Gen 41:12 We told the dreams to a young Hebrew man who was a servant of the captain of the guard. He told us what each of our dreams meant,

Joseph continues to attribute his gift to the God of Israel, not Egypt. In Gen 41:16 “It is beyond my power to do this,” Joseph replied. “But God will tell you what it means

Pharoah seems to accept Joseph’s god, Gen 41:38-39 As they discussed who should be appointed for the job, Pharaoh said, “Who could do it better than Joseph? For he is a man who is obviously filled with the spirit of God.” Turning to Joseph, Pharaoh said, “Since God has revealed the meaning of the dreams to you, you are the wisest man in the land!

So, it seems to me that the Bible will justify certain outward behaviors in certain circumstances, but after Joseph saved his family, the biblical implication seems to be that they were able to worship the true God in Goshen thanks to Joseph. Israel blesses his sons before he dies, and while not stated explicitly, the implication seems to be that they worship the true god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, before falling into the apostasy of idol worship which happens over 400 years.

Now I know that Pharoah probably had a pantheon of gods, but I suspect that is the special motivation Moses needs to emphasize how bad polytheism is. If Moses got the message, shouldn’t Balaam have also received it? Shouldn’t Balaam have simply joined Moses, instead of opposed him?

You’re welcome to add a speculative story of how Balaam is a prophet.

You’ve raised two new interesting objections that I’d like to address. First, Balaam may have received revelation (for others) and not been a prophet. This claim rejects the Old Testament criteria of prophetic calling and replaces them with something new. This seems to return to the previously discounted criterion that prophets must be part of the hierarchical structure of the church (This is the central difficulty with the Our Lady of Fatima.) The scriptural examples of prophets that are not part of the church structure are innumerable and I don’t think we really need to revisit them. But, if we reject Balaam on those grounds; we also lose all the prophets that are explicitly outside the hierarchy of the church.

I do think that the example of Our Lady of Fatima is sufficiently different from that of Balaam that it is not really applicable. Some of the differences do point up the strength of Balaam’s claim. Our Lady of Fatima is almost unheard of among Mormons; the revelations of Balaam are a cherished part of Jewish history and the blessings are quoted quite often. While both Balaam and the three children are (from my perspective) outside the structure of the true church of the time, Balaam is accepted by that body (even though E, J, P, and Moses have every reason to reject him); the church has no position on the three children. In Balaam’s time, the church has every reason to denounce him (they don’t); now the church is much more conciliatory and rarely explicitly denounces anyone (I’m much more inclined to believe the average church member believes the three children did not receive revelation but they hold their tongue in order not to offend.)

Second, deep seated character flaws disqualify Balaam from being a prophet. You’re right. Balaam’s character was probably flawed before he ever met Balak. This is not something we learn from the text though. Any ideas about Balaam’s life previous to this incident are purely speculative. You’ve chosen to try and fit Balaam into a tradition of divination for hire because it is easier for you to discount him there (Joseph in Egypt also fits nicely in that tradition.) Your example of David (though not exactly prophetic) in this case helps Balaam’s case more than it could ever hurt. Even during his long descent into sin, David functioned quite well in his position (his reign is usually looked on as a kind of Jewish golden age.) The case of Eli is similar (if not as fondly remembered.) God seems to allow prophets (and other leaders) the same period of grace necessary for repentance. If we were to look hard enough, we could find examples of prophets breaking nearly every commandment that Moses received. Their character flaws are not good reason to deny they are prophets.

Would you mind restating briefly how you understand the story of Balaam? It seems that we’ve covered a lot of ground and I wonder what you think of him now. I’m curious to see what (if any) new information you found compelling enough to add to your version of the story.

Of course there are lots of people who claim to be prophets–from nutjobs like Brian David Mitchell, to legitimate prophets like Moses. I’m not sure I understood your last paragraph in 28. It seems like you’re saying I was advocating Moses to be a missionary among the city of Jericho, and you seem to be saying that Balaam was being a missionary. If that’s what you’re saying, I don’t view Balaam as a missionary. Certainly he had more tolerance for polytheistic beliefs than Moses did, but he wasn’t advocating Balak join with Israel, or trying to get Balak to be a monotheist.

Balaam’s admonition to get Israel to sin so soon after his vision blessing Israel makes me question his status from true prophet to false prophet. It seems the change would have been like a light switch, and I would expect such a transformation to occur over the course of years. David didn’t turn from hero to villain in an instant. The time between Goliath and Bathsheba took decades. From what I can tell, Balaam was paid for prophecies prior to Balak’s request. Balaam’s love of money for prophecy doesn’t strike me as a lightswitch in changing his character–it was there all along. The fact that he blessed Israel seems more like Jeanne Dixon’s prediction that JFK would die in office. Sure, Dixon’s prediction is an interesting prediction, but I’m not convinced of her psychic abilities, nor Balaam’s status as a true prophet.

As far as I understand your position, these events did not happen. God did not actually do any of these things because:

Balaam tries to gain favor with Balak (a polytheist).
God’s angel threatens Balaam.
Balaam makes sacrifices at altars that Balak prepared.
Balaam causes the Israelites to sin (through the Moabites.)
(I think this is a pretty good list of your previous objections. If there are any that aren’t addressed by these general categories please mention them.)

Are any of these things truly inconsistent with a prophetic call? I’ll give examples from other prophets for each of these perceived flaws of Balaam. (None of these are exhaustive lists.)

Gaining favor with polytheists
Abraham-Sodom and Gomorra (He returns their goods and prisoners when rescuing Lot.)
Joseph-Potiphar/Pharaoh
Elisha-Naaman
These examples are from both before and, surprisingly, after Moses. The account of Naaman is particularly instructive because of how Naaman reacts to his healing. He acknowledges the power of God but then insists on fitting Him into a preconceived polytheistic framework. Namaan needs to bring back dirt from Israel in order to worship God in his home land. He is treating the true God as the chthonic deity of Israel. Elisha doesn’t correct this misunderstanding. Gaining favor with polytheist and allowing them to retain their corrupt worship is clearly not sufficient reason to reject a prophet.

God threatening his prophet
Jonah
The implicit threat of death in Wilford Woodruff’s statement that the prophet cannot mislead the church.
The prophets of God are subject to the consequences of their action just as anyone else. That the consequence is sometimes death might strike us as severe but in reality that is the consequence of all sin: it is just in our experience that it is usually deferred. When the destroying angle tells Balaam to go and do as the Lord commands or be destroyed, Balaam goes and is safe until he disobeys the Lord in causing Israel to sin. Balaam is then subject to the threat of the angel and is destroyed.

Conducting sacrifices with polytheists
Elijah and the priests of baal-admittedly most of the preparations are done by Elijah but he does allow them to procure his bull.
Naaman-not a ritualized slaughter but it does fall under the broader category of ritualized acts of worship of which blood sacrifice is a part. In this instance (like Balaam) Elisha gives instruction about the act which Naaman then carries out. This goes much further than the case of Balaam. Elisha functions only as an advisor and Naaman actually officiates. while in the case of Balak, he makes the preparations and Balaam officiates.

Causing God’s people to sin
This is the most difficult of the objections because it is directly tied with Balaam’s status as a fallen prophet. We do have accounts of other prophets sinning and thus causing Israel to sin. Most of them are not punished strictly as Balaam (but some are.)

Eli doesn’t correct his sons who lead Israel to sin. He and his sons are destroyed (like Balaam.)
Lehi leads his family to murmur against God. He repents and is not punished further.

Each one of these objections individually don’t disqualify Balaam from being a prophet prior to their commission. Does the sum of all them disqualify Balaam as prophet prior to the commision of all of them? I don’t believe so. God has a blanket threat for all his prophets: God reminding him of this does not add to the sum of Balaam’s sins. Both gaining favor with polytheists and involving them in ritualized worship (even with little to no effort in proper instruction) are part of the Namaan story and we certain would not disqualify Elisha. Balaam’s final act certainly does disqualify his future acts but only because he does not repent (he dies first.) Balaam’s sin does not negate his previous status as a prophet.

Now I’m sure any number of objections could be raised about these examples. They would be along the lines of those leveled against Balaam: The prophets did not do these things or they were not prophets. That takes this discussion into a different realm. Do we reevaluate scripture to fit our folk ideas of prophetic calls or do we reevaluate folk ideas to better fit the record of prophets? I’m not entirely against reevaluating scripture and in a counted few cases I think we will find cases where they are in error. I do not think that this is one of them. The story of Balaam as prophet is internally consistent and fits nicely in the prophet tradition (even if he eventually falls.) But if this really is a discussion of which should change folk beliefs or historical record, we should stop arguing it on the basis of scripture and use some other framework.

On a side note. I went back and reviewed the previous discussion of the battles of Joshua. I thought it was interesting that here you would argue so strongly that Balaam is not a prophet when his corse of action would seem to be what you would expect of Moses and Joshua (if they were to act according to your concept of morality.) On reflection, I’m sure you would not see it that way but at the time it was quite humorous.

However, as you mentioned, ancient Jews didn’t view prophets by the laying on of hands at all, but rather by actions. Balaam’s actions are contradictory from the beginning of the story. According to Moses, Balaam should have had no contact with the polytheist Balak. If Balaam tries to help Balak, how can Balaam be eligible to receive a vision from God? Certainly people can sin and be eligible for visions: Paul and Alma come to mind, but neither of them were considered prophets by either priesthood authority or by actions prior to the vision, and subsequently they embraced the true God after their visions.

Laman and Lemuel had a vision, but we don’t refer to them as fallen prophets. It seems to me that if we claim that Balaam’s vision was legitimate (which I greatly question), then Balaam’s actions are more consistent with Laman than Paul. Balaam’s actions just don’t seem congruent with a true prophet, but rather the selfish, power hungry Laman. We don’t claim Laman to be a fallen prophet, and I don’t think Balaam should be considered a fallen prophet either.