What Priesthood?

                                                     What Priesthood?

“Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world: that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

    To examine the CJCLDS claim of direct Priesthood authority back to Jesus one necessarily needs to ascertain its ancient origin.  When did it first appear in the pages of man’s history?  Where did it come from?  How did it get passed from one generation to the next?  It is not until these questions are supplied a reasonable answer, that the claim of Priesthood restoration in 1830 can have any substantive context.  For, if the Priesthood order as presently constituted in the CJCLDS has no continuity down through the annals of time, if it has no relevance to previous orders, if it’s eternal importance in the salvation of all mankind is not substantiated by ancient evidence of its intimate activity with man in all ages, then the claim of authenticity is necessarily vacuous and opportunistic.

    My earliest memories of church sermons contain numerous discourses on Priesthood authority.  The assertion was made frequently throughout the fifties and sixties that if the church did not have the original Priesthood of God, then the church was no more than any other Christian church.  It then was the creation of men, and had no more efficacy and claim to be God’s power than any other religion’s—all others by definition being false.  This tenant was drilled into the church missionaries, and became one of the tools I used to try and persuade the church investigator that only the CJCLDS had the true Priesthood of God.

    A perusal of ex-member literature, as well as the church’s own conference addresses will reveal this matter is more pivotal than any other upon their claims.  It doesn’t matter if Joseph actually had a Vision of any kind.  It also does not matter if the Book of Mormon is an authentic history of the Aborigines on the Western Hemisphere.  Without a direct link to Priesthood down through the ages all the way back to Adam, the CJCLDS is not only an impostor, but no such thing was ever truly had among men.  The entire matter of religion then becomes the probable First Scam, and accounts for why many ex-members become atheistic, or agnostic (albeit they hardly leave the cult mentality of Mormonism behind with their departure).  It is vital to remember that this is not my view, but that of the church’s own representatives who made this declaration.  The reader is urged to investigate this material to see just how far they went in setting themselves up.

    Margaret Barker, biblical researcher and Methodist preacher, has ably demonstrated the original claims of authentic priesthood derive from the Melchizedek, but that ascertaining those links, and even the origin of Melchizedek’s priesthood is virtually impossible.  The CJCLDS assertion that Moses received his priesthood from Jethro of Midian is completely untenable.  No records have ever been found to support this claim.

    The crux of the assertion of continuous Authority maintained by the CJCLDS centers in the events recorded in Kirtland, Ohio, April 3, 1836.  Joseph and Oliver maintain that Jesus, Moses, Elias (Noah), and Elijah appeared and committed the Priesthood keys of all previous dispensations.  It sounds fine superficially, but like every other aspect of Mormon doctrine, begins to unravel as the full scope of history is revealed.  In the first place, no one knows how many dispensations there have been, nor who held the keys of them, and why.  It is maintained by church officials that Abraham had a dispensation, though he is not accorded any Priesthood keys of a dispensation in the 1836 event.  As stated in the Pearl of Great Price, the nations of the earth would be blessed by the presence of his posterity because they are supposed to have a right to this Priesthood. The text asserts it was given him by Jehovah, or the God of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ.  The CJCLDS teaches the Priesthood is supposed to be conferred by the physical laying on of hands.  But the story of Abraham’s account given by Joseph Smith merely has God/Jesus announcing the fact to Abraham.  Some apologists claim Abraham received his priesthood power from Melchizedek, to whom he paid tithes.  But there are no ancient records substantiating this claim either.  The laying on of hands to receive the Priesthood is a critical, fundamental doctrine of Mormon dogma.  There is no evidence outside the Pearl of Great Price that Abraham ever had a priesthood.  It is merely presumed like the Protestants presume God assured the New Testament is His Word without error (even though religious scholars have identified tens of thousands of errors).  If Abraham had a genuine dispensation with Priesthood authority, why did he not also appear at Kirtland  (D&C sec 110)?

    The problem gets worse when one examines the claim of Elijah appearing.  Not only is there no Biblical justification for the prophet Elijah ever having any sealing keys, the idea is a foreign concept in Judaism.  There is no such thing as sealing parents and children together in the history of the Jews in any age.  (The sealing of parents and children was an innovation of president Wilford Woodruf.)  Elijah (or Abraham, or Adam) is not even present on the Mount of Transfiguration, where Jesus is purported to have received His Priesthood authority from past dispensation prophets.  Not only does the Mormon doctrine of Jesus receiving Priesthood keys from Noah and Moses seem absurd, since by their definition Jesus was Jehovah, and therefore already had those keys being the Originator, but the fact that Abraham, Elijah, and Adam are not present on the Mount of Transfiguration riddles the Kirtland account with conundrums.  From the time I first heard of Adam-Ondi-Ahman, and Jesus receiving the dispensation keys all the way back to Adam from each of the prophets having keys, I thought it was bizarre because it didn’t make sense.  If Jesus retained power in Himself from Adam forward to initiate and terminate a dispensation of the Gospel, what need has He to receive them back from mortals?  Did He somehow lose His Priesthood power over the ages by bestowing it upon men who then must not die until these keys are returned to the next designee?

    The CJCLDS has yearly celebrated a Priesthood Commemoration.  Every year as a teenager I had drummed into me how important the restoration of the Priesthood was.  We were told names and dates for the Aaronic Priesthood, and names, but no sure date for the Melchizedek Priesthood.  I was among the many who often wondered why a fixed date for the Melchizedek Priesthood was not known. Melchizedek Priesthood is the authority to establish God’s church, as we were indoctrinated.  Without it Joseph Smith could not have organized the church in 1830 (Joseph not only did not have it in 1830, no mention of priesthood authority existed until the Kirtland debacle.).  So one inevitably arrives at this juncture: if God’s power to organize and run a church, along with the avowed saving ordinances was so vital (enough that all of mankind’s eternal happiness and disposition worlds without end hinged on this event), why was it not known exactly when and where it happened?  Why had God not seen to it that this Event was proclaimed independently of Mormon proselytizing in every tongue and creed and culture round the world?  Why would He depend on those miserable few destitute true believers sent to the Christian nations of their ancestors to spread the word?  Why did not God prepare the peoples of other climes so that when His messengers did arrive they expected it and were ready to receive it?  Instead the account is shrouded in mystery, speculation, and presumption.  This does not sound like the God of the last dispensation of times who has His act together.

    It just did not seem rational to me that God would fail to make such a vital and pivotal dispensation of His power known in an incontrovertible and indisputable manner for even the greatest skeptic to examine.  Instead we have all manner of polemics in print as to when it happened, and probable scenarios of what happened, none of which has enough evidence to disprove any of the others.  What we find is the church authorities have to cover their foopahs, for in asserting that a man must have the Priesthood (and therefore Joseph Smith also) to establish His church, they had to ensure that Joseph did indeed have the same at the founding of the CJCLDS.  One might believe it is reasonable that Joseph was given this priesthood in order to organize the church, until one looks at the actual historical evidence.

    The church was established legally on April 6, 1830.  One would think that irregardless of setting up its internal hierarchy, the authority from God to even legally create it must be in place.  Obtaining it after the fact is the first clue that something is not right.  Indeed, the church authorities have taught since the Nauvoo period that the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored about June 6, 1830. Yet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey are said to have received this power two months after the fact!  How can they have power to organize the church in April, when they didn’t get it until June, according to church dogma?  Now historians have searched and re-searched records around the country seeking clues to clarify this event.  The closest explanation fitting court records, eye-witness sightings, and journal entries by Joseph, brings one to the date of the first week of July, 1831.  If the county court record and Joseph’s journal entries are correct, the day quite probably was the sixth.  This information was obtained by the extensive research of Michael Quinn, published in his Origins of Power.  Quinn later published an apologetic piece trying to tone down the controversy, and made a partial backtrack from his book.  My position is simply this: All claims of authenticity of the church rest on having the ancient Melchizedek Priesthood, according to them.  If this is true, why is it such a controversy?  THE most important event since the Crucifixion is surrounded in controversy, innuendo, and obfuscation?  I do not believe in a God who would leave His offspring in such an insecure position if their salvation depended on it.  Mormonism teaches that God is our literal Father.  No loving parent is going to leave their children bickering over who has the right to boss the siblings in His absence.  The right to speak for God and boss the human race around is all the claim to an ancient priesthood order is.  The CJCLDS proclaims God’s house is a house of order.  Surely this matter would have been manifest to the world in a more rigorous setting than an ambiguous, nondescript tale of ancient apostles appearing on a river bank, declared to the church membership and world with all its inconsistencies, six years after the fact?

    It is reported by early church officials in recorded testimony (much maligned and obscured by church officials) that there was never any mention of Priesthood authority in the church prior to the Kirtland era. In 1836 the church in Kirtland was rocked by the mass exiting of membership and several high officials.  The present Church Education System covers this period lightly, and leaves the student with the impression that the exodus of these high officials was due to their wickedness.  But if one searches the documents a different story comes out.  Martin Harris confesses to many of these high officials that he and the other witnesses to the Book of Mormon DID NOT physically handle the golden plates, the same as you and I would handle a stack of dishes being put upon a table.  The whole thing happened “in vision."  This revelation by Harris began a mass departure from the church that culminated with the Kirtland bank failure and Joseph’s sudden overnight exodus from Kirtland.  What the Church Education System deliberately conceals is Joseph left town to avoid litigation on fraud charges, becoming a fugitive from justice.  Being a wanted man for bank fraud in Ohio was why he never returned and eventually settled in Illinois.

    It was also during the Kirtland era that Joseph and Oliver published their “vision of Moses, Elijah, Elias, Noah, and Jesus, all committing their keys of His kingdom to man in the last dispensation of time.  For many years I strove to learn how many others present at the dedication were privy to this vision.  Indeed I had the impression for years that everyone present saw it.  In fact, only Joseph and Oliver and no one else witnessed it.  The assembly hall was divided by curtains, and during this purported event Joseph and Oliver were alone.  Documents have come forth showing that the partaking of the sacrament during the temple dedication was more than a symbolic drink of wine.  It is known that a great deal of wine was had all through the day and well into the night.  If these prophets DID appear as claimed, like the Melchizedek priesthood restoration by Peter, James, and John, it is THE most significant event since the Crucifixion. But just like the dubiousness of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood at a time and place that no one can confirm, the reception of sealing keys pertaining to the Melchizedek Priesthood is of similar suspicion.  Only two people saw and heard in a building packed to the doors? Where are the independent "witnesses in whose mouths all things shall be established?"  Sober people of sound mind with unrestrained alcoholic drinking all day and into the night? That's like Spencer Kimball ordering a couple of cases of Paso Robles into the temple upon convening the Twelve only, in 1978 over the Blacks and the Priesthood question.  More than fifteen hours or so later Spencer and his first counselor alone declare a new revelation on the matter claiming to have been visited by heavenly messengers, including Jesus.   Where is the wine?  (Incidentally, the Twelve attempted to give the Blacks the Priesthood in December of 1969 but Nathan Tanner then absent, upon his return vehemently opposed it and forced the retraction in the press, blaming it on an unauthorized "leak!")  The only written account of the actual event was recorded by Bruce McConkie in an obscure Deseret Book publication!

To summarize the highlights of the CJCLDS’s beginning:

• Joseph and Oliver in concert with Sidney Rigdon concocted the Book of Mormon to make some money and obtain a little notoriety (Mormon= more mon-ey?).
• A church is organized before its founders received heavenly power to do so.
• Assertion of Priesthood authority in 1836 never before mentioned in the church.
• A re-write of the First Vision subsequent to mass exodus of members and key officials.
• Appearance of Jesus and ancient prophets returning sealing keys observed only by the religion’s founders in a building packed with predominantly drunken people.

    One needs only investigate the origins of Priesthood in the annals of history to discover it began before the Flood. Post-Flood, Moses was the second groomed pharaoh in Egyptian history to conduct a religious war making a bid for the throne (the first was Abraham), and with each captivity and dispersal of Israel there was an attendant feud between the priests who were left behind and those who returned from captivity trying to re-establish the old order.  The actual history of Israel is rife with priestly feuds, claims and counter-claims of genuine Priesthood, and through it all a continual degeneration of the old temple rituals, a change in the doctrines, and change in the historical records to purge out any reference to the ancient teachings and rituals that cast aspersion on the new Priesthood regime.  These purges are how the story of Adam and Eve and the Creation came into existence.  Prior to the Deuteronomists’ purge of the ancient Royal Cult, there was no Adam and Eve doctrine (an Egyptian myth surrounding Akhenaten and Nefertiti), and the Creation story was considerably different.

    Margaret Barker, a religious researcher and Methodist minister (who LDS historians tout produced evidence supporting LDS claims) has sought to uncover as much evidence as possible characterizing the ancient Royal Cult.  Her publications repeatedly paint a far different picture of early religious beliefs and practices than what CJCLDS authorities have maintained since 1830.  She explains the nature of the concept of Restoration, and her analysis shows the idea of a restoration of the “true Gospel” and Priesthood authority were never a part of early religion.  The ancients had a different concept of restoration.  The kind of restoration the CJCLDS heralds to the world, is one manufactured by true believing Christians on the American continent during the founding of this nation.  It is an interpretation of earlier writings without basis, from a dead era by believers who sought desperately but in vain, to preserve the oldest religious notions of man in Egypt.  Other works now coming forth show with increasing certitude that Paul the Apostle was the founder of modern Christianity and its church structure, not Peter, James, and John, as maintained in the CJCLDS temple presentation, and that Peter and his followers never belonged to a “church” as such.  This concept is orthogonal to the picture coming forth of Jesus’ ministry and the selection of His followers.  Paul institutionalized what Peter was trying to carry on—a kingdom of God on the earth within the hearts of men, as Jesus himself declared.  The New Testament like the Old, is an amalgam of selected writings specifically organized to present to the world a favored history and dogma.  It is no coincidence it favors the writings of Paul, and speciously rewritten stories of the ministry of Jesus.

    My take on the abundant evidence undeniably shows that, like most of what Joseph Smith did, his alleged priesthood keys and authority was an innovation on an old theme to exalt himself over man.  From stone peeper to book author, church founder, prophet, chief high priest, mayor, general, candidate to the U.S. Presidency, being crowned King of Israel over the whole earth (not by any Jew), establishing an anointed quorum (which group was said to have a fullness of the Priesthood), this was all meant to establish himself in the eyes of his followers and the world that he was next to God and Christ. He was the man appointed to bring back all the ancient ways of divine royalty.  The whole construction of priesthood authority as maintained by the CJCLDS breaks down quickly when one takes the time to evaluate the material and let it speak for itself.  Indeed, as Margaret’s research suggests, the “Restoration of all things spoken of by all the prophets since the world began” is nothing more than the God of heaven shutting evil back into its own place and re-establishing peace and harmony among man.  It was a spiritual mission and Margaret’s research confirms Jesus’ words before Pilate.

Priesthood authority only has to do with the notion of divine right to rule over men. It was a construction of the Egyptian pharaohs in the social vacuum left by large meteor impacts triggering the Deluge and world cataclysmic events ca 13,000 years BPE, as the world sought to recover from the devastation wreaked upon man’s burgeoning civilization.   The entire purpose of Priesthood authority lays in the lust to obtain control of the masses, to establish at the head of its hierarchy one person retaining the power over life and death, both spiritual and temporal.  Ultimately, this is all Priesthood power has ever been about.

SethSmee

REFERENCES
The Older Testament Margaret Barker, 2005
The Great Angel Margaret Barker, 1991
Temple Theology Margaret Barker, 2004
The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its influence on Christianity Margaret Barker, 2005
Egypt in Eden Ralph Ellis, 2004
Tempest and Exodus Ralph Ellis, 2000
The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophies Firestone/West/Warwick-Smith, 2006
The Seven Daugthers of Eve Bryan Sykes, 2001
Sydney Rigdon 1793-1876 F. Mark McKiernan, 1971
The Mystery of Godliness David John Buerger, 1994
Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Re-examined Rodger I. Anderson, 1990
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why Bart D. Erhman, 2007
The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power D. Michael Quinn, 1994
Studies of the Book of Mormon B.H.Roberts/Madsen/McMurrin, 1992

In the Beginning

What is it you want?
Do you know?
Can you articulate it?
Who do you serve?

One thing I do want, is sensibility out of the 4,743,981,650,342 answers to the simple utterance Why?
From my earliest years until late adulthood I have been unraveling all the questions imposed on me by the voices of Authority.  I wasn’t given much opportunity, much less instruction, on how to compose my own questions.  Those who have obtained the status of Authority it seems, want to impose their own questions and answers before one obtains the gift of Sight.  And the absolute WORST word to use around them was Why?

It began sometime around the age of four.  I was taught to pray to God, a being who lived in heaven (wherever that was), and he, being my Father, would answer all my desires, for he knew everything, was more powerful than anything, and could keep an eye on everybody at once.  (They never did get around to what heavenly mother was doing…. Busy according to Morg-think I suppose, generating replicants, close kingdom cousins to miscreants and malcontents.)  At four this is total magic—and terror.  My first question was, Why must I talk to a being who knows everything?  Surely he knew my question before it was asked!  If he was truly my father, then Why had I never met him?  Why must I ask him for things I wanted, since most of the time I could go and get what I wanted all by myself?  It was only if my power to acquire failed, did I need somebody to do it for me.  Since the mother and father I did know did not always give me what I wanted, Why would this being I had never seen nor heard, and more wise than my mother and father give me anything I wanted just for the asking?  Children at age four may believe in magic, but Why would people with Authority think they’re stupid?

For that matter, Why did such a Being need anyone to worship him?  This I thought was not only silly, but contradictory.  Anyone who had all the answers, power to do anything, and could be watching everybody no matter where they were surely did not need all these people to come worship him so he could be happy?  Boy! I said to myself, this guy really has a problem!  Only much later did I learn this craving for worship was a fundamental trait of the megalomaniac.  Discovering this only compounded the difficulty in making sense of the dogma imposed by Authority.  Magic as a child I understood.  Megalomania I recognized immediately as a major human defect, even though I couldn’t articulate the concept.  If this was what God truly was, he had at least as big a defect as some people in Authority I crossed wires with.  These people were always cranky.  I promptly lost interest in praying to him, nor did I think he was such a great guy to be asking things from, especially if it went against what my mother and father said was “right.”  He had not employed any magic on me, so I wasn’t about to cowtow to anything I was told Authority claimed he wanted me to do.  I’d been read the story of Brer Rabbit.  I knew what a tar-baby was, and God seemed to me to be the biggest tar-baby of all!  When the day came the tar-baby spoke, that was when I would listen up.

This formed the thinking of a child from four to about seven.  Apparently this is extraordinary, as to date, I have never heard any of my peers, or elders, profess to have had such thoughts at this early age.  In fact, many of them, especially my siblings and relatives in their senior years, are still going around believing this dogma in spite of what their eyes, ears, and faculties tell them.  Enter Brer Bear….

Come eight years of age the scene began to change.  Suddenly, I was expected to be all-knowing.  See, there was this rule of Authority that said children when they arrived at their eighth birthday were suddenly accountable for their actions.  (How absurd.  Accountability is a journey in self-knowing and personal honor.)  Wow!  I looked forward to this great magical transformation after cake and ice cream!  Now at that time these Authority folks all seemed to have a little bit different version of what accountability meant.  At that time I naturally thought accountability was being able to re-tell exactly what happened when they were looking for a scapegoat over something which violated their sense of fair play.  As I had quickly learned around Authority figures, the better I was at re-telling, while leaving out certain incriminating facts, the less likely I was to be made a scapegoat for their own failure of oversight.  This was our religion, and shortly after I arrived at the Age of No Excuse my mother gathered her children then living at home and proceeded to tell us about how God intended us all to be saved….

How many different versions are there of In the Beginning…?  There are more versions of it within Mormon dogma than one can possibly harmonize, much less integrate.  Upon this specious conflicting mass of myth, Mormonism predicates their Plan of Salvation.  You may observe various parodies of Mormonism’s Creation Story on the web.  The range is from hilarious to totally bizarre.  But through it all, one must ask Why would God be able to “save” all of mankind who are under the Age of No Excuse, but cannot do a thing for those who have never heard of the “Plan”?  Oh yes, sooner or later, those who have not, are entitled to hear this preaching.  But for a religion that claims men are saved by their works, and thereby become worthy of His Grace, it seems highly unlikely that the ignorant can accept this form of Gospel as if they had lived it while in the body and receive of the same salvation as those who were required to attend to every outward duty prescribed by Mormon policy, practice, and dogma until they expired in the flesh.  Do those “lost souls” who had never heard Mormon dogma and accepted of its vicarious “saving” rituals while in mortality get to bypass the extortion of tithing which the Hierarchy uses to finance their expansionist programs?  Absolutely.  The ignorant dead have it made.  All they have to do is accept the vicarious programs of penance by someone still living, and off they go to live with God in Eternal bliss.  BUT, among those who knew the dogma here, and abandoned it, they have no chance to redeem themselves once they’re dead.  They have no chance to say to God, Oops, I didn’t realize what I was doing in the flesh, please can I make amends?  This is Mormon reconciliation with God!  There are variations on this theme.  But they’re all of the same color of “justice.”

By the time of puberty I began looking for some meaning to life.  Especially with the demise of my mother, and abandonment of my father.  What I could not articulate until well into grandparenthood, is that religion is not synonymous with spirituality.  I was told by presumed “experts who talked with God,” that the Book of Mormon was the best tome to read to attain at-one-ment with Jesus.  I proceeded to tear to pieces, to dissect, analyze, reconstruct and incorporate everything inscribed in the religious tomes.  When pulpit speeches became vapid, I spent hours searching every “good book” in and out of the pews.  The spirituality, the at-one-ment I was seeking never materialized, not in the books, not in the worship services, and not in the charitable activities.  When I dropped the books and sought spiritual communion, I found transcendence and eventually the at-one-ment I was seeking.  It came in the still of night like Jacob of old.  Not once, but twice, so far.

Of all the people I observed who seemed to have attained transcendence and communion with God, virtually all of them were men, and they had not achieved it through religious piety nor conformity.  (By their Nature, women are not normally constituted to seek this state.  It is a form of surrender that spooks the hell out of them.)  Fifty years to discover that religion is not about spirituality!  Mormonism is not designed to promote spirituality.  It is designed to promote Authority through spiritual impotence.  All religions do this, but Mormonism has the disease in spades and clubs.  The so-called “experts” within Mormonism’s hierarchy don’t commune with God.  They speak as though they were God.  They assert all manner of rules, policies, practices, and rites as if it came from God’s own mouth.  But if you ask any of them about the nature of their communion with God, all they can profess is some lame, vague “testimony” about His words in the “tomes.”  They profess an unutterable feeling, or worse, an irrational, indefensible conviction as the basis for their ability to speak for God.  What they say sounds just like what the Levite priests proclaimed in Deuteronomy.  What they do reflects what the Sanhedrin priests did which Jesus condemned.  None of them since the beginning of Mormonism’s organization have ever professed the transcendent experience, claimed by ancient prophets.  Take the Enochic, or the Jacobian accounts of heavenly vision as the pattern of prophetic impetus, and align it with that of Mormon authority personalities, and they are as dry as the dead men’s bones Jesus denounced.

What IS spirituality?  One can start with what it is not, and that is anything connected with religion.  Did Jesus or Mohammed join a religion?  Jesus didn’t preach joining a religion to find spiritual communion.  And if you think he started a religion because he started a “church”, you don’t know your own language, nor the history of Christian religion, nor the manner of teaching Jesus employed.  To begin with, Jesus was not a Christian!  And if you think Jesus is the symbolic embodiment of Christianity, compare the Christianity of Jesus admonishing Peter to put up his sword with Christianity from that moment forward.

In the first place the language Jesus spoke was Aramaic.  Most of the religious world spins on the Greek translated form of Matthew 16:18.  Mistake number one in interpreting this passage is the assumption that the book of Matthew contains Jesus’ actual words! (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted)  Number two is accepting the Greek versions of “rock” for the singular version in Aramaic—which is a pun, consistent with allegory.  And three, to assume there is no difference between the word “church” and religion.  On this singular passage in all the New Testament Christianity bases the credibility and validity of authority of their religious dogmas.

Puns are metaphors.  Part of what makes them so humorous is contemplating the literal existence of something abstract and its consequent absurdity.  Did Jesus literally mean Peter was a rock?  Did he literally mean the “rock” of his “church” was Peter the “rock”?  To literalize this is not only absurd, but is inconsistent with the manner in which Jesus taught his followers—his congregation—his “church.”  Jesus taught by allegory, which in Hebrew has many English forms, but all viewed as deriving from the same root.  In the English translation the allegory is referred to as a parable.  It is a synthetic story with a moral value.  Clearly this passage in Matthew is an allegory.  I find it most remarkable that few, if any, religious intellectuals have observed this glaring, obvious utility.  Jesus was comparing Peter’s exclamation of conviction to that which others would exhibit among his congregation of followers—his “church.”  Church derives from the Greek word kyriake, meaning supply or house.  But the word apparently used in the Greek to compliment the Aramaic meaning was ekklesia.  Its meaning derives from the Greek usage of summoning an army.  What army?  The “army” of his followers—those who subscribed to his teachings—that the “Kingdom of Heaven” was not only at hand, but within each one of them.  His “army”, his “church” was not of this world—meaning that it was not constituted after the manner of men when they organize themselves together.  This is the only interpretation that is consistent with the ancient Essene texts which describe the life and philosophy of Jesus.  The reason the Sanhedrin rejected him as the Messiah is he did not have any interest in the literal liberation of the Jews.  He wanted to liberate them from their spiritual servitude.  So they murdered him for the insurrection his teachings caused.

Jesus in speaking by allegory (metaphor) is showing how his followers will come together and “organize” themselves—through the same conviction which Peter declared.  Jesus did not organize a religion (or church as we have altered the meaning) with Peter at its head.  If Peter was at the head of the church (an earthly construct inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings—my kingdom is not of this world), where does that put Jesus?

The spiritual teachings by Jesus in Matthew (6-16) have nothing to do with religion.  It is about a society of people who each have discovered the treasure contained in his declarations of true values.  They are about liberation of the heart, to surrender it to God, and become at-one with him.  This is the meaning of spirituality, and it has nothing to do with the vapid discourses in church, nor the insipid rituals which represent the form of spirituality, but have no substance.  (Women love ritual as it permits self-justification while avoiding the moment of reckoning.  Ritual is the appearance of spirituality without its substance and its required self-sacrifice.  The purpose of the female veil isn’t to conceal a woman’s emotions.  It is there to intercept the all-seeing eye of God.  They don’t want to be found out—that they don’t know what they want because they don’t know who they are.  Reconciliation with God is how one discovers who one is and the beginning of real spirituality.)

As Catholic friar Richard Rohr said: Religion is the safest place to avoid God.  God teaches self-surrender.  Religion teaches self-control. The sum purpose of religion is control—to define limits beyond which man cannot tread.  That is exactly what the Prince of Darkness seeks.  Adam is said to have refused it.  Jesus defied it.  Man upholds it.

The entire concept of the Mormon Plan of Salvation is the impressment of God’s children into hierarchies.  At the top closest to God, are those who conformed to everything Mormon authorities told their acolytes to do, no matter what cost in spirituality or temporal welfare.  From there on down are various divisions splitting people off from each other in terms of how valiant they were in following Mormon authority in the name of God.  Once their kingdom assignment is consummated, that is their fate, worlds without end.  They cannot ever rise any higher.  (Even their most accomplished apologists cannot plainly distinguish between “progression” within a kingdom and advancement to another.)  The carrot and stick of fear is used to goad everyone into the top echelon, full well knowing few can possibly attain that kind of “perfection.”  They proclaim their church as family oriented, but you must be willing to destroy your earthly family and its solidarity if it ever interferes with the church’s objectives.  Personally, I’ve failed over the course of a half century of study to ascertain where any of that practice and dogma coheres with Jesus Talk.   The inconsistency became glaringly acute when I had my first transcendent experience. Once I had been reconciled with myself and Jesus, reviewing my objectives in coming here, I found myself increasingly at odds with Mormonism. But it didn’t stop there.  I found that the entire culture of Christianity had fully missed the mark on what Jesus’ mission was about and the purpose of his doctrines.

By the time I had come to my crossroads with Mormonism, I found I had come full circle with the little child at age four, who continually asked Why?  I had come home, and in so doing discovered who I was, what I wanted, and who I served.  Future posts will present some of the anomalies, the irrationalities of the religion I was told was the only true one.  I now know why I did not observe any association of Jesus with religion during that ascension.  He never started one.  Atonement is about being reconciled with yourself, with him posing as the “mirror” of self-evaluation.  Only he can help you see when you are “good enough.”

SethSmee

REFERENCES

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name."

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368 JPK pages 17-18

Jesus Interrupted Bart Ehrman
Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman