Was the Bible God's Going-Out-of-Business Sign?

Modern Jews believed that God called prophets, through whom sacred scripture came, for slightly less than 4,000 years, ending with the death of Malachi around the fourth-century B.C. Christians revived God's revelatory power with Jesus and the Apostles, continuing until the final martyrdom of the Apostles before the beginning of the second-century A.D. For the modern Christian, God's word flowed for slightly over 4,000 years, ending with letters sent by the original Apostles and the Revelation of John. After the writings contained in the Bible, God stopped revealings things to prophets.

A few centuries after the disappearance of the Apostles, well-meaning Christians compiled the writings they believed were inspired into the first "Bibles". Before that, there was no universal agreement among Christians about what writings were "inspired". The earliest Christians accepted the mystical Jewish Book of Enoch (quoted by Jude and alluded to by Jesus and Peter), and later writings like the Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were read in many early churches before later being purged and forgotten.

But what happened to living prophets? Why were Peter, James, John, and Paul the last? Why did God, after over 4,000 years, suddenly stop speaking?

He didn't. The Apostles were martyred, and no new ones were called to take their place. God no longer had any authorized servants on the earth. This was a fulfillment of prophecy:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. (Amos 8:11:12)

The fact is, the Bible wasn't God's going-out-of-business sign. He is the "same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8), and whenever mankind is willing to listen, he sends a prophet among them (Amos 3:7). In 1820, the end of the long famine began, and the heavens were opened again (as Paul prophesied they would be; Acts 3:21).

Organization of the Early Christian Church and the Latter-day Christian Church

It's no wonder that many Protestants (particularly Evangelicals) who engage in serious study of the New Testament find in its pages an organization that seems foreign and strange. During the Reformation, Protestants stripped themselves of what they considered unnecessarily superfluous beliefs, rituals, and organizational traits that they thought were corruptions of the Roman Catholic Church. Modern Evangelicals, their radical descendants and who ironically claim to place supreme authority on the Bible, now consist of a relatively loose body of Christians who have disregarded the hierarchical organization of the New Testament Church in favor a belief commonly referred to as the "priesthood of all believers". But such a belief cannot stand up to historical scrutiny. Cardinal John Newman, a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism, once rightly said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" (emphasis added). Once one understands the functions and organization of the early Christian Church of the Bible, it's difficult to justify a belief in a "priesthood of all believers", which is in direct antithesis to the New Testament.

But I'm not especially interested in directly criticizing the beliefs of Evangelicals or other Protestants. Rather, a better approach may be to point out structural similarities between the early Christian Church of the New Testament and the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and let conclusions be drawn from there.

Apostles. The New Testament describes the Apostles as being given to lead the Church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). Even after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, he continued to lead his Church through apostles, and further apostles were called (Acts 1:26). In the early Christian Church, the three leading apostles (Peter, James, and John) were clearly a leading group, with Peter receiving revelation to lead the Church (Acts 1-5, 8-10). The same is true of Apostles in the LDS Church.

Prophets. The New Testament describes there being ordained prophets among the early Christians (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). After the resurrection and ascension of Christ, he still directed his Church through revelation given to apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:5). The same is true in the LDS Church.

Bishops. The New Testament describes some Christians being ordained to the office of bishop (1 Tim. 3:1), who were to oversee the "flock", or their specific congregation of Christians (Acts 20:28). The same is true in the LDS Church.

Seventy. The New Testament describes Jesus calling "the seventy" who were sent on missionary services (Luke 10:1; 17), and early Christian documents describe this office as continuing into the early Christian Church as directly under the Apostles. The same is true in the LDS Church.

Elders. The New Testament describes some Christians being ordained to the office of elder (sometimes called presbyters), who were to be ordained in "every city" (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). The same is true in the LDS Church.

Teachers. The New Testament describes teacher as an office that one is ordained to with specific duties (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). The same is true in the LDS Church.

Deacons. The New testament describes deacon as an office that one is ordained to with specific duties (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:10-13). The same is true in the LDS Church.

Latter-day Saints do not claim to exactly mimic the organization of the early Christian Church; our belief in continuing revelation through a prophet of God means that the structure and organization of the Church is continually adapted to fit our circumstances. Nevertheless, the similarities are clear and in direct contrast to Protestantism which does not claim to be lead by continuing revelation through a modern prophet and holds the Bible as its only standard.

It's no wonder that Joseph Smith felt it necessary to state our belief in a biblical Church organization as if it were something profound and that it was among the statements subsequently considered an "Article of Faith" by the LDS Church:

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors [bishops], teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

Another similarity between the New Testament Church and the LDS Church is the manner in which men are called to the above offices. In many forms of Protestantism, particularly Evangelicalism, ministers claim to receive a personal "call" to the ministry and do not seek authority or permission from other ecclesiastical leaders. In contrast, the New Testament describes all members of the above offices as being called and ordained by previously-ordained men in a hierarchical structure.

For example, Jesus personally called Peter and Andrew on the shores of Galilee. The two fisherman did not just follow the Savior and take it upon themselves to be his apostles (Luke 6:13). Likewise, after Christ's ascension, the elders of the Church were called and ordained by the Apostles or Seventy (Acts 14:23); they did not receive a personal "call" to be elders in the Church. After Paul had his vision of Christ, he sought out Peter, James, and John (Gal. 2:9) for permission to preach, and was "ordained" as an apostle (1 Tim. 2:7).

In the letter to the Hebrews, the author succinctly states, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" (Heb. 5:4). And how was Aaron called of God? Revelation was given to Moses, God's current prophet, that Aaron should be made a priest (Ex. 28:1-4), and then Moses ordained him to it (Lev. 8:9-13). Aaron never experienced a personal "call" to be a priest; he was called by one having authority. The same practice is done in the LDS Church.

Again, it is no wonder that Joseph Smith felt it necessary to state, in contrast to the other Christian organizations of the time,

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

I keep saying I'm going to blog about things but then I never do. Maybe now that I have high-speed internet I'll find the time.

Brief update on my ever-so-significant life: I just moved back to Provo for summer term at BYU, and I'm looking for a job because I can't really afford to be going to school right now. Not much else going on right now.

Maybe tomorrow I'll right something more substantive....

Second Draft Finished

I've finished the second draft of my paper. I'm actually really pleased with it right now, except for the title. The working title right now is "The Religious Influences that Prompted Joseph Smith's Early Visions"--which I'm not happy with, but my creative juices have run out. Hopefully I'll come up with something soon.

My thesis explores the religious environment of Joseph Smith's youth, including the familiar Christian revivalism, the extreme importance of Methodism on Joseph's pre-First Vision outlook, Smith family religion and how Joseph might have been influenced by the spiritual quests of his parents and relatives, the Smith family visionary tradition, and the surrounding magic culture, including the ritualistic treasure-quests and seer-stone folklore that the Smiths were involved in, and its connection to the Moroni visions and the Book of Mormon.

Over the next several days, I might incorporate some aspects of it into blog posts. I have a lot of extraneous material that I don't have room for in my paper, most of which is extremely interesting.

I've finished the first draft of my paper "The Religious Influences of Joseph Smith that Led to His First Visions", which explores the unique combination of Christian revivalism, family religion, and folk magic that prepared the future-prophet for the First Vision and angelic visitations from Moroni.

Lectures on Love - Lecture #2

As I am currently in Louisiana swimming in a stew of misery and grief spawned by my never-ceasing boredom, I decided to take this opportunity to once again generously share from my ever-increasing vaults of wisdom.

This lecture will focus on handling rejection, something I admit I have not had much experience in (because, really, who would reject me?). Still, I have universally-applicable advice that you would do well to accept.

Rejection comes in two forms: swiftly and directly, or agonizingly slowly. The former comes by a direct statement or action, while the latter comes when slowly, over many days or weeks, kicks you to the side, one little kick at a time. Both of these forms of rejection should be handled in the same way: dramatically and violently.

Now, in the case of a direct rejection, this might come in the form of a sudden outburst or perhaps loud and unrestrained crying. Both of these are acceptable, depending on your personality type. In the case of the slow rejection, things become more complicated, because usually you do not realize that you've been rejected until after the fact. There is also the large chance that the rejector, when confronted, will deny that they were consciously rejecting you. Do not buy into this; it is merely their attempt to make you feel foolish and take blame off of themselves.

So what do you do? If you have caught on mid-rejection, before they have completely cut you off, then you can take preemptive action and reject them. If they're slowly having less and less to do with you, likely because they're supplementing with interaction with someone else, then do the same thing, but more publicly. Get some hot girl/guy, post some pictures on Facebook, and then give your potential rejector a direct rejection. Thus your pride and reputation remain intact. Either that, or scream at them and burst into tears.

Always remember: rejection should never be taken calmly or graciously. If either your voice isn't raised, you aren't screaming about how your life sucks, or your rejector doesn't have any bodily injuries, then you didn't do it right.

Lectures on Love - Lecture #1

[I originally wrote this and posted it on Facebook two months ago. This is what happens when I try to be funny.]

Seeing as I am an unrivaled authority on all things in the relationship realm, having been unable to repel the hordes of women who have pursued me throughout my days and thus having a generous bounty of dating experience myself, and after consulting with a close colleague, I was convinced to begin a series of written, authoritative lectures concerning the ever-important topic of love.

Readers should be warned, however, that though my advice is irrefutable and binding on the hearts of men, this may be difficult for those to whom it applies most. This is understandable, however, as the guilty taketh the truth to be hard. They that have ears, let them hear.

I will begin by drawing on the not-real-life, entirely made-up and hypothetical scenario of Isis and Horus. Isis and Horus are both freshman students and have been friends their entire freshman year.

Everyone is aware of the existence of the wretched "friend zone". It is like the offspring of a dementor and a black hole, tearing at the very fabric of happiness itself. The friend zone is a natural, defensive feature. Isis, being a female and thus having a large, encompassing friend zone, has unavoidably sucked poor, unsuspecting Horus into it. Horus, once aware of his position, loses all interest in pursuing Isis, though he potentially would have been interested; likewise Isis is blinded by her own unconscious categorization. A couple that could have been happy for eternity will instead both find second-bests.

Or will they? Let's say Isis has enough self-awareness to realize this and separate herself from her impulsive classifications. Isis realizes her affection for Horus, but what is she supposed to do? Horus is unaware of Isis' new-found realizations and so offers no hint of interest; Isis sees no hint of interest and is left not knowing what to do.

Hey Isis, as I already told you, here's what to do: go up and tell him. Hail Mary it and you're life will be awesome. As far as I'm concerned, if he doesn't feel the same and lets the inevitable awkwardness get in the way of your friendship, he must not have been that great of a friend anyway. Oh, and don't forget to kiss him. In fact, forget the talking part and just go up and start him like a Chevy. And no, that's not a sexual innuendo. I don't think. Actually, I'm not really sure what it means. I just heard it in this play I went and saw because this really awesome girl was in it.

But I digress. Morals of the story: friend zone=death and destruction, and Isis should just go up and make out with Horus.

Stay tuned for the next lecture in this ongoing series.

Follow this blog on Facebook

Got a second? Got a Facebook? You should click this link to follow my blog on Facebook. Great idea, right?

Gnostic Mormon

I've decided that from now on, all of my religion-oriented posts will be written at my new blog, Gnostic Mormon. In lieu with that, my first posts over there will explore the early Christian Gnostic movement and its relevancy to Mormonism. So yeah, something for you, my avid readers, to look forward to.

1 Corinthians: The Milk, But Not the Meat

"AND I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

In the latter half of the first century A.D., the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians for the second time (the first epistle is lost to us; 2 Corinthians actually represents Paul's third letter to Corinth) and explains that, previously, he has fed them with "milk" because they could not bear "meat". This time, he states that "neither yet now are ye able", the reason being the contentions, arguments, and divisions among them. Paul acknowledges that they have separated themselves into Christian "factions", some claiming to be followers of Paul, others of Apollos, others of Peter, and others of Christ.

Because Paul states that the saints at Corinth cannot yet bear "meat", it is safe to assume that there is probably not any doctrine contained in 1 Corinthians except that which Paul would have considered "milk". Obviously Paul was aware of other, deeper doctrines, but felt it unwise to share them with the Corinthian saints at this point.

Does Paul share the "meat" in any of his other epistles? Is the "meat" that Paul knew about even contained in the New Testament? I am not aware of anything especially significant in the rest of Paul's writings, or in the rest of the New Testament, that fits the mold for the "meat" that the Corinthians cannot yet handle.

But let me get to my point: God's works are endless, and his words never cease. The Bible by itself does not contain every single revelation that God ever gave, nor was the completion of it God's "going out of business" sign. Paul wasn't an anomaly; some men are given the same calling today, and their words carry just as much weight.