Friday, November 11, 2011

Eternal Covetousness



Ancient Orders

Dear L,

When I first read about Joseph Smith's marrying of wives belonging to other men my impression was that he had really gone off the deep end.  The general consensus about his marrying under-age women is viewed as his being a sexual pervert.  Well there is no doubt that he was a pervert, in that he had unrestrained sexual desires in view of his banging Emma's maid out in the barn long before Kirtland.  But in Kirtland is where it takes an interesting twist.

Very little is written about Rabbi Joshua Seixas in church history, other than that he was involved with the School of the Prophets (a seeming oxymoron since why would prophets need a school to be a prophet, who by definition are called of God?  So perhaps it was really intended to provide an education to those who desired prophetic status as their ignorance was seeping through the cracks of their "prophecies.").  However, in discovering the ancient royal genetic practice it now appears fairly certain that what Joseph was doing was an attempt to restore the ancient royal cult.  It explains a lot of seemingly disconnected things he did.  And there is no doubt, even though direct evidence is missing, that Joseph got all this history that appeared in the church from the Rabbi in Kirtland. There is no other source whereby he could have obtained such ideas, and have botched them so badly from an historical perspective.

A little historical background is required.  The Anunnaki priest-kings, overlords of Sumer, were an ancient people that apparently derived from a highly advanced civilization decimated by a world-wide cataclysm.  They were known as the "Shining Ones" because of their advanced understanding of Nature and technological skills.  I believe there is more to this metaphor, but have yet to discover suitable evidence.  It was the custom of the Anunnaki to pass the right to rule to the first born son, who also had to be of pure blood descent.  To accomplish this the son had to marry a direct descendent of the matrilineal blood line in order to obtain kingship.  This practice resulted in the marriage of half-sister with half brother, both having a common father.  For those siblings after the first born son the choice often became one of their first cousin.

When I took Sociology 101 at the UofU extension, it was taught by a Libyan professor.  He happened to mention one day on the topic of marriage that it has been the custom of Libyans (as well as most other related Arabians) to marry their first cousin, which practice was in decline with the Westernizing of Arab culture and the spreading notion of marrying for "love."  This transition alone is enough to destabilize millennia of cultural stability and a good reason for their hatred of Western influence.

Zooming ahead a few thousand years to Abraham.  It turns out that Abraham was the son of Terah by his wife Yawnu, and Sara was the daughter of Terah by his wife Tohwait.  Yawnu's ancestry derives through a zig-zag route to Lamech, while Tohwait's is more direct through Nimrod the Mighty Hunter and TubalCain the master craftsman.  Tohwait's line had right to the throne of Egypt.  Tohwait's son was Amenemhet I of the 12th dynasty, apparently by way of Terah. It was Amenemhet's son Senusret I who came after Sara to take for a wife--she was the rightful matrilineal line for his kingship (and his direct sister too!).  Abraham feared for his life as the Pharaoh's staff wanted to kill Abraham.  Sara ends up marrying Senusret in a plea-bargain arrangement that keeps Abraham from getting nixed.  The story of Abraham being saved by an angel of God may have some merit if one gets rid of the Mormonized notion of an all powerful God overthrowing the sacrificial bed, and substitute a priest-king such as his father Terah or uncle Harran as the "angel" (which in Mesopotamian culture was a messenger of the priest-king).  I doubt the story has any validity since the Facsimile of Abraham was debunked as funerary rite in the middle '60s.

It is also important to recognize that these marriages were often consummated when the matrilineal blood line was too young to bear offspring so that the male could obtain his kingship, and later they would produce offspring.  Sara was apparently in this position when she married Abraham, as she initially could not have children.  It was a law passed down by the Anunnaki that in such instances she could allow her husband to have children by another woman, and in Abraham's case it was Hagar.  Hagar was also of matrilineal descent through Nimrod, so more than just a handmaid, Sara and Hagar were distant cousins.  In such an event, if the 2nd wife produced a son, he did NOT have right to the throne as priest-king.  This accounts for the feud between Isaac and Ishmael.  Ishmael was first born, and chaffed at the Mesopotamian law of succession.

So what you have here is Joseph Smith trying to establish a dynastic line similar to the Egyptians, who were direct descendents of the Anunnaki priest-kings.  It explains why he had himself anointed king over all Israel and took other men's wives as well as young women to wife.  Mormonism has been about priest-kingship to this day, albeit the understanding of the caste system has been lost to the Mormon authorities, and the bastardized plural marriage practice implemented by Joseph Smith by his association with Rabbi Joshua Seixas has been further corrupted.  There is a certain method to all this madness, and the interesting thing is, it follows in the footsteps of the fraudulent practices of the Levite priests who attempted to wrest the land of Canaan from their distant cousins the descendents of Canaan as their "promised land" under their fraudulent history and non-existent genealogy. So much for King Josiah.  They started all this crap under which the present world now groans.

Seth Smee

REFERENCES
The Origin of God Laurence Gardner 2010
Genesis of the Grail Kings Laurence Gardner 1999
The Older Testament Margaret Barker 2005
The Great Angel Margaret Barker 2005
The Controversy of Zion Douglas Reed 1955

Footsteps of the Wannabes



What Priesthood?

Dear L,

Here's another one that superficially looks nondescript and even irrelevant. But as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

Joseph Smith puts the Aaronic priesthood ahead of the Levitical. At least until "the sons of Levi offer an offering in righteousness."

But here's how it goes genetically, for there is no priesthood in Israel that is not genetic:

Aaron and Moses are first cousins. Aaron's father, Aye, and Moses' mother, Tiye, are siblings. Aaron's mother Tey, is a descendent of ... Levi! Aaron's father Aye, is a descendent of Ham through the Hyksos kings by his father Yusuf, and a descendent of Esau through his mother, who was a daughter of Potipher. The very same Potipher's wife who the Deuteronomists claim tried to seduce Joseph, son of Jacob/Israel. That Joseph story is bogus because there are several hundred years between Joseph son of Jacob, and Yusuf, Vizier to the Pharaoh who married Potipher's daughter. As for Moses' father, he was AmenhotepIII, pharaoh of Egypt in a typical matrilineal descent. His connection in the whole shebang is that character AmenemhetI of the 12th dynasty who was a son of Terah and half brother to Abraham!

Anyway, at Mt Hor Aaron was stripped of priestly vestments and subsequently died. I believe there is a lot more to this story, for Moses was a pharaoh himself, none other than Akhenaten, the True Believer of the ONE GOD who was expelled from Egypt. I suspect Aaron may have been murdered, or died of a heart attack. Aaron actually ruled Egypt for a short time when Moses was expelled. So, one must ask the question: How could there be an Aaronic priesthood if it was taken from the originator thereof? And who gave it to him, Moses? Or was it truly through his father, Pharaoh Aye? From that point on you don't read much about Aaron's priestly posterity, since it is the priests of Levi who are writing--ahem, REwriting the history of Israel in the Pentateuch!

The whole thing is quite convoluted and it is hard to figure out who's genealogy is the most direct. But just when you start to think this is getting sorted out we run into a swamp of details. Jesus is supposedly the rightful heir to the throne of Israel (but according to Morgdumb Jesus/Jehovah castigated Israel back in the days of Samuel the prophet for throwing out the Judges and installing Saul as king!), but the Herod line during Jesus' lifetime also were of rightful descent. I do not have that genealogy. As the story goes, Jesus was a descendent of David, who was a descendent of Boaz, who was a descendent of JUDAH by way of an illegitimate child, Pharez. Now Judah was not the oldest, Reuben was. Yet Levi's descendents get a priesthood while neither Reuben nor Judah do by the time of Moses, and today nearly every male in the church is told his heritage is through Ephraim (still a different brother) which members are told has the right to the priesthood of Melchizedek! At this point one must ask the question who's priesthood is genuine, or are they all bogus?  I go for the latter because it is consistent with the victim mentality and squabbling that shows up repeatedly in Israel's history.

What do we know of Melchizedek? He is the king of Shâlem (Salem), the original city upon which modern Jerusalem is built. He "blessed (with bread and wine)" Abraham for having participated in the battle of kings in that area wherein Lot was rescued from the Elamite king Chedorlaomer. From the Ras Shamra tablets we learn Melchizedek was a priest of his father who was none other than El Elyon, one of the Anunnaki overlords of Sumer, Adam's uncle! Here is a completely different genealogical strain which has no known posterial connection to the house of Jacob. There are those who would claim Abraham received his priesthood from Melchizedek as part of the "blessing (a mistranslated word)" but there is no evidence anywhere in the world, not even within Morgdumb to support it.  Emmanuel Velikovsky defines the word Melchizedek as “Zedek is [My] King”, with Zedek being the local name for Jupiter.  It was during Abraham's lifetime that Jupiter was worshiped instead of Saturn.  So by inference, Melchizedek was a worshiper of Jupiter.  In addition, the "secular" texts record that Abraham shared with Melchizedek the spoils of war against Chedorlaomer, whereas the Morgdumb text says he paid tithes to Melchizedek.  Very little is known about Melchizedek beyond these facts at this time.

By now it should be fairly evident that the Old Testament (like the New Testament), is laced with lies, forgeries, and corrupted accounts all designed to position the children of Jacob as the "chosen" people of God, perpetuating the sibling rivalry of his brother, Esau. (The irony is many of their descendents intermarried!) The whole extent of it is a fraud perpetrated by the Levitical priests returning from Babylon ca 600BC who apparently have a terrible inferiority complex, and therefore carry the largest victim complex the world has ever known.

You may not remember Alvin R Dyer and his doctrine of literal "transubstantiation" whereby anyone who joined the LDS church became an actual, literal descendent of Israel by action of the Holy Ghost. Their DNA was changed! I remember wondering what evidence Alvin had for that doctrine and thoroughly expected to discover some revelation. Haha! When he died no more was heard of it and his books went out of circulation. Today we now know there are NO literal descendents of Israel from the time of the Diaspora anywhere in the world. It is impossible to trace by DNA as there is no genetic marker that can be tagged as "Jewish."

Doesn't all this ancient Biblical history sound like the mishmash we were taught under the church's CES?

Seth Smee

P.S.  Mr. Gardiner asserts by Biblical genealogy and the King’s list, along with a number of cited sources, that the character Noah and his listed Biblical ancestry is bogus.  Noah never existed!  The story is apparently taken from a contemporary figure of the Flood and deliberately ascribed to a non-existent son of Lamech in order to move the Israelite ancestry out of the line of Cain, who the Deuteronomists had already disparaged by way of improper transcription of older texts as a murderer and cursed man.  If Mr Gardiner’s investigations are correct, then Noah could not have appeared as Elias in Kirtland, on 3 April, 1836.  Sections 107, 110, and 138 of the D&C therefore are fraudulent with regard to priesthoods and their keys.  It also makes the business of the transfiguration recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke suspect, for Elias (Noah) never lived and the cartouche of Moses (Akhenaten) was found unused.  No one knows where Akhenaten was buried, while the Levitical deuteronomists say Moses was taken up by God.  Morgdumb asserts Moses was translated and never died--a doctrine distinctly out of sync with the rest of history.


REFERENCES
The Origin of God Laurence Gardner 2010
Genesis of the Grail Kings Laurence Gardner 1999
The Older Testament Margaret Barker 2005
The Great Angel Margaret Barker 2005
The Controversy of Zion Douglas Reed 1995
http://www.varchive.org/itb/zedek.htm