In the Old Testament book of 2 Kings, a story is recounted of a leper named Naaman who was a commander in the Syrian army. By and by he is instructed by a true prophet of God in Israel named Elisha to dip himself in the muddy Jordan river seven times if he wants to be healed. As the biblical record states:
"Naaman went with his horses and chariots and waited at the door of Elisha’s house. But Elisha sent a messenger out to him with this message: 'Go and wash yourself seven times in the Jordan River. Then your skin will be restored, and you will be healed of your leprosy.'
"But Naaman became angry and stalked away. 'I thought he would certainly come out to meet me!' he said. 'I expected him to wave his hand over the leprosy and call on the name of the LORD his God and heal me! Aren’t the rivers of Damascus, the Abana and the Pharpar, better than any of the rivers of Israel? Why shouldn’t I wash in them and be healed?' So Naaman turned and went away in a rage" (2 Kings 5:9 – 12, NLV).
In the end, Naaman is convinced to at least try the simple instructions he had received, which ends up healing him of his leprosy. But why did Naaman initially complain about the task? Because it went against his spiritually-uninformed assumptions about cleanliness, violating the highest scientific principles of his day. As the Pulpit Commentary explains:
"The 'rivers of Damascus' are streams of great freshness and beauty. The principal one is the Barada, probably the Abaua of the present passage, which, rising in the Antilibanus range, and flowing through a series of romantic glens, bursts finally from the mountains through a deep gorge and scatters itself over the plain. One branch passes right through the city of Damascus, cutting it in half.... The Barada is limpid, cool, gushing, the perfection of a river: It was known to the Greeks and Romans as the Chrysorrhoas, or 'river of gold.' We can well understand that Naaman would esteem the streams of his own city as infinitely superior to the turbid, often sluggish, sometimes 'clay-colored'...Jordan. If leprosy was to be trashed away, it might naturally have appeared to him that the pure Barada would have more cleansing power than the muddy river recommended to him by the prophet" (Spence-Jones, H. D. M. "2 Kings 5:12," The Pulpit Commentary).
Naaman had enough education to know that bathing in a dirty river would not make one as clean as bathing in a clean river. Thus for Naaman to follow the instructions of the prophet in this case would have gone against the accepted science of his day on which he relied. This was Naaman's dilemma, compounded in his mind by the lack of the enlightenment of the spirit that could have come through faith. In short, Naaman had to choose between the direction of a man of God [Elisha] and the safe and effective science of his day. Thankfully, Naaman chose the former.
Naaman's dilemma was not that of Joseph F. Smith who had choose between the direction of a man of God [Lorenzo Snow] and the promptings of the spirit directly to him. Thankfully, young Joseph F. Smith chose the latter:
"Lorenzo Snow was drowned in the harbor of Honolulu, in the Hawaiian Islands, and it took some hours to bring him to life again. At that particular time the Lord revealed to him the fact that the young man Joseph F. Smith, who had refused to get off the vessel that had carried them from San Francisco to Honolulu, and get into a small boat, would some day be the Prophet of God. Answering Lorenzo Snow who was in charge of the company, [Joseph F. Smith] said:
"'If you by the authority of the Priesthood of God, which you hold, tell me to get into that boat and attempt to land, I will do so, but unless you command me in the authority of the Priesthood, I will not do so, because it is not safe to attempt to land in a small boat while this typhoon is raging.' They laughed at the young man Joseph F. Smith, but he said, 'The boat will capsize.'
"The others got into the boat, and it did capsize; and but for the blessings of the Lord in resuscitating Lorenzo Snow he would not have lived, because he was drowned upon that occasion. It was revealed to him, then and there, that the boy, with the courage of his convictions, with the iron will to be laughed at and scorned as lacking courage to go in that boat, and who stayed on that vessel, would yet be the Prophet of God. Lorenzo Snow told me this upon more than one occasion, long years before Joseph F. Smith came to the presidency of the Church" (Heber J. Grant, "Inspiration and Integrity of the Prophets," Improvement Era, volume 22, number 10, August 1919, pp. 847 – 848).
We see in these two contrasting stories the interplay between dilemma and truth. In both cases a man is forced to make a choice between two opposing courses: in one, the dilemma is that the truth is opposed to a man's natural understanding; in the other, the dilemma is that the truth is opposed to the counsel of leadership.
When one feels to resist against the direction of spiritual guides, the question should be this: am I as Naaman, opposed for the sake of my own thinking, or am I as Joseph F. Smith, opposed for the sake of my inspired convictions? If the former, we would do well to repent; if the latter, we would do well to stay the course.
Comments