FATHERS; Civilization's Last Hope

I almost escaped notice of this time of year.  I have not cared for it much since the day a man in black robes sentenced me to life outside the daily felicity of my children.  I applied for their custody and was denied.  I was devastated.  The children's mother felt vindicated--for a very short time.  I was not the kind of father I had wanted to be, but certainly not the villain she had made me out to be in their eyes.  There was a lot of transference of her feelings onto them in those days.  And sadly for her, the vindictiveness continues to this day.  The children have long since reached adulthood, but the impact of her vindictiveness and its secondary effects has not departed from their lives.  They struggle as did I, and the irony of it is, the oldest is worse off than the others, who had graduated from high school when the split up finally became official.

I did not have a father growing up, although I had a biological dad.  He was more an itinerant priest than father even though his profession was the construction and maintenance of pipe organs.  He was a war baby as I was a post-war baby, and that social atmosphere for him engendered a different attitude about the future than what was beneficial for post WWII.  In the middle of his life he suddenly found himself in an obsolete profession, his spouse dead, near broke, and no idea how to be a father.  Nor did he find himself possessed of the desire to finish the job.  In his panicked state, he cast about for a willing woman to take the reigns.  But of course she wished for her own offspring, and I bless all the stars in heaven she was infertile.  Those of us still left in the home were disowned soon enough as he redoubled his efforts to raise the rest of his Zionist tribal pack by adopting kids to suit her maternal over-drive.  Had she reproduced I doubt us pre-adolescent kids would have emotionally survived.  Dad would never have had the opportunity to send me away when he finally felt able to implement his Millenial Dream.  I would have either left town or this planet.

Be all this as black as it seems to me at this far distant shore, he did insist on a few things which I perceive noteworthy.  As my mother sagged over the years into the old woman in the shoe role, we were compelled to muster to the duties of laundry, house-cleaning, and feeding ourselves.  All of us had our turn at a rotating list of chores. It would have worked out well had not some of the older siblings been negligent.  Rebellion often lurked when dad was otherwise occupied--which was quite often.  About the time dad finally sent me away for good (or so he thought) I was performing most of the dish-washing, mopping, vacuuming, mowing and garbage detail.  All this in addition to 2 hours weekly of personal laundry and ironing.  The younger ones were not considered capable of performing any of those tasks, and when they did, it was often in haste.  I was tolerant of their incompetence for lack of skill, but I chaffed constantly at their laziness.  What I got out of it was a skill-set unusual for a father in these "modern" times.

Part of dad's exiling of his children was sending me off to work on the older sister's dairy farm.  The amusement of the operations lasted only a short while.  His excuse was to teach me to work.  But I was the only one he compelled to submit to such summer work.  And besides, every time I was gone he was off pursuing his Millenial Dream, dragging the remnant of our family half-way across the North American continent.  I especially did not understand his reasoning since I was handling more than my sibling share of household chores.  I didn't really learn anything about how to work for a boss (my brother-in-law resented my presence and preferred to focus on raising his own children--and rightly so), although I did learn a few things about farming.  But I did buff up considerably, at least to the point I lost my fear of bullies and popular athletes.

 Thousands of mile-markers distant from those days I am deeply disturbed when I read of men who receive little praise from their wives for their contribution to family felicity through their efforts at fathering.  These women have not learned anything about men really, and expect the world to turn for them as their father's provided for them while they were imbeciles.  All too many of them complain about their husband's lack of competence, and/or interest in domestic labor.  I have yet to see any of them know anything about REAL labor unless they were raised on a farm which required their participation in order to survive. Furthermore, they complain because men don't know how to make love to them once married. But I'm still looking for the woman who has learned how to make love to a man, especially as his virility diminishes with time. It takes more than looking like Barbie to fulfill his bonding urges.  Lest this be perceived as nostrum, my first wife although familiar with farm survival labor to some degree, still was sheltered by that of her father's labor who she despised for many years. She had no idea about the mechanics of sex beyond stick-figure action, and wanted to hide under the covers with the lights out on our wedding day.  Some farm girl.  As the oldest of six girls, she was especially adept at complaint, backstabbing, and competitive subterfuge as the rest of them.  When we met, her opinion of most males on campus was that men felt they were God's gift to women.  How I missed her stereotyping I cannot fathom.  What she never realized was that the real problem in her wifely repertoire was that she felt she was God's gift to me.

Contrary to the stereotyped clarion blasts in all the Media, men are not simply the equivalent of the dairy bull who's only reason for existence is to inseminate the entire herd.  There aren't any more dumb brutes among men than there are dumb broads among women.  Women are constantly prattling about this or that male-centered discriminatory issue.  What they don't understand is that while their hormone level may rise to thrice their childhood level upon entering puberty, the male's testosterone levels are seven times higher than females at this age.  Is it any wonder a male seldom has anything else on his mind?  It takes a well-tempered and nurturing father to guide his son past this rampaging period, to socialize him into managing those urges productively.  When men are given a chance to transcend the effects of the chemical changes that often drive them to insane acts, they discover they want and can actually achieve equal if not better in some instances, nurturance and parenthood than their spouse.  Their is no difference in capacity, only in understanding and opportunity.  And it takes a well grounded father who is blessed with a dynamic, vibrant, and flexible relationship with his spouse to teach his daughter how to be worth more than a Barbie late-comer.

So where does a mother fit into this?  If she does not participate with her husband in socializing her son to become a desirable husband, what does this say about her?  Women, you just can't have it both ways.  Good men are attracted to good women.  Women who understand the male psyche know what makes them tick and what motivates their paternal instincts.  Too many women enter marriage with the expectation their chosen mate will treat them where their father left off.  Enter Snow White and Cinderella.  Just as a man must learn how to polish his bride, a woman must learn how to cultivate a faithful groom.  And it is at this crossroad where it starts going South.

A Groom can never be groomed to be a woman's ideal mate.  This is the heart of a woman's misunderstanding.  She cannot and never will successfully groom a man into her desired image of perfection.  Men do things differently than women, and if she tries to mold him in her image, he will despise himself and other men will pity him should he measure up to her standard.  The good men are not all taken, deary.  They are cultivated.  Once a woman understands how this is carried out she will obtain her heart's desire, but rarely before.  So my deepest wish on this celebratory day is that women will get off their high pedestal of emotional superiority and go read up on what makes a man roll up his sleeves.  It doesn't take a lot of effort to implement and the rewards are mutually delightful.

Start with Dr. Kyle Pruett's research in The Nurturing Father, and Father Need.  Do what he counsels and watch the amazing transformation of your children and your relationship.

SethSmee

Why I oppose DOMA

Christians are hypocrites.  At least they do not follow the teachings of Christ, but have corrupted them.  Let us begin with a portion of the Lord’s prayer:
“…thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done, in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10, Luke 11:2)

Clearly, Jesus is indicating that the objective of His teaching is to bring the Kingdom of God down among men.  That is what the Christians seek; it is implied in all their sermons and in their belief in the “Rapture”, or the Second Coming of Jesus to rule personally the people of the earth.  Sounds like a dictatorship to me, but that is a secondary issue.

What did Jesus say about marriage? 
“…The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:  But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:” (Luke 20:34-5)

Is it so hard to put this together?  There is no marriage in heaven, and this asocial institution is one that all faithful Christians should be working to bring about on earth.  If and when the Kingdom of God arrives on earth, there will be no marriage on earth either.  It is what the Lord Himself has so stated (if you can believe what is contained in the Gospels), but Christians in the Far Western world are supporting a political movement for the opposite.  Who are the children of this world?  Do Christians teach anything about this?  My take on the Lord’s answer to the Sadducees in Luke is that they are those who adhere to the institutions of men, but have no interest in the Kingdom of heaven, much less bringing it about on earth.  Within the context of Jesus’ own sermons, this is undeniably the case.

Some Christians will point to the teachings of the converted Saul of Tarsus in defense of their views on homosexuality.  But you cannot find any such teaching in the words of Jesus.  Get out your computerized scriptures people and find it if you can.  This doctrine is Paul’s exclusively, and is one of the body of teachings Peter and James eschewed from the Jerusalem church.  It was Paul’s twist on Jesus’ teachings as well as his departure from Jewish orthodoxy that forced them to banish Paul from preaching around Jerusalem.

Now some Christians (those who are ignorant of their own doctrinal history) will argue that Jesus created a church, and that church is the one that Paul expanded.  But today it is common knowledge among Christian theologians that the book of Ephesians is a fraud; Paul did not write that book.  Furthermore, the word church as Jesus used in Matthew 16:18 in Aramaic does not have reference to the Church that Paul created, which subsequently became the Catholic church of the Roman Empire.  The concept of church in this context is entirely different.  Any priest worth his salt in theological training will tell you these two facts are so.

If then marriage is a secular institution, it is plain the Church co-opted marriage, proclaiming it as ordained of God, not of men, contrary to the words of Jesus himself.  This is the myth the Church has promulgated down through the centuries, and the cause of it can be found in the early history of the Church when the Pope assumed the head of world government.

Today people enter into marriage predominantly by the action of a priest, but when they divorce, it is by action of a judge of the local court.  Everyone turns a blind eye to the fact that priests receive their commission to perform marriage from the State.  Marriage today, as is the case historically throughout the world, is the co-mingling of property in common cause.  Said Dr. Thomas Szasz:

“Success or failure in marriage depends not on whether husband and wife love each other, but on whether they want to merge their lives and fortunes.” Untamed Tongue p94

For generations, the Chinese custom of marriage was predicated on this very principle, as indeed were the Western royal marriages throughout the Middle Ages.  Love and heaven have nothing in common with marriage.  Those are the facts.  (The story of love, marriage, and living happily ever after originated with the Ring Lord culture which culture predates Sumer.  Their fairy tales were code stories used to preserve the origin of their tribes.)  In view of this it is dissimulating of both the homosexual community as well as all Christianity to support the notion that marriage is about love and raising a family.  The institution of marriage has to do with the property of the persons involved combining to support each other, and the rearing of children so that they do not become a burden on the community.  The African aphorism about a community is required to raise a child is not about the child’s physical support, for even they do not care for children in this manner, but the socializing of the child’s mores to preserve and support the community’s survival.

Now I am not in favor of the dissolution of marriage and its consequent impact on family.  The oldest of the human mythology speaks of the Golden Age where all men did right by each other, and there was never want for the necessities of life.  That was considered heaven on earth then, and the fact that nobody spent their lives acquiring property since none was necessary, did not preclude family association.  It seems evident from the old records that human bonding was simply predicated upon other values.

At this juncture some will conclude that I am in favor of homosexual marriage.  Not so.  The reason is secular, not moral or religious.  The US Constitution’s Amendments do not support rights by class distinction.  Retired people, colored people, GLBT people, and others do not as a class or subclass have specific Rights different from any other presumed class of people.  The Constitution considers the entire population of the country as a homogenous whole and makes no distinction based on race, color, creed, or sex (the exception being the inclusion of slavery which was ultimately amended out).

In order for one person to have a Right, there must be some form of claim by that person upon one or more people who have a corresponding obligation.  This is why the Bill of Rights clause, Amendment Ten declares that all privileges beyond that extended to the Federal government in the same document are reserved to the people.  Not to some people of one distinction or another, all the people.  Opposite to the interpretation Alexander Hamilton took (at great remonstrance from Jefferson and others of the Signers), the obligation the Federal government has is the protection of all Rights imaginable, except those enumerated to empower the Government to carry out such protection, on behalf of the People. What the Federal government under the aegis of Hamilton doctrine has been doing is subdividing and granting Rights to particular classes of people.  This is the crux of the problem with homosexuals and their false claim to the right to marry as a group.  The governments, both Federal and State, were never granted authority by the People to dispense any Right of marriage.   The Federal government was only granted the right to protect the right of all people regardless of distinction to marry as they see fit.  Once this door is opened, the Federal government then has the opportunity and impetus to invent all manner of Rights pertaining to family and marriage which was not and never should be its purview.  Any parents who have had dealings with Juvenile Court know just how bad this can get.

When the State of Hawaii was considering the issue of DOMA, the supreme court struck down the law passed because it was unconstitutional.  The homosexual community claimed it as a victory, the religious Right (particularly the Mormon church funding the movement) saw it as a step backward.  Neither realized the full scope of what the judge issuing the ruling was saying.  A public column in the local paper had a comment by one person that marriage is a contract with society.

It is no such thing, and never has been.  No contract with society is even implied.  When two people apply for marriage within the State, it is for the purpose of obtaining a license to do so, which covers the basic requirement of asserting monogamy and being free of contagious venereal disease.  Certain other minor matters are attested to by the applicants on the license.  There is no written contract with the State, nor with each other.  Only in divorce is a written contract honored, that of a pre-nuptial agreement.

If the government were properly doing its designed function, there were would be no distinction between applicants for marriage license based on race, color, creed, or sex.  Any discrimination on the part of the government in this matter is expressly forbidden in the Constitution.  Well, one may ask, what about clubs, businesses, or religions who discriminate against people in any one of these areas?  If the government extends itself into any of them to regulate, then this becomes racism, fascism, state religion, and sexism.  It is National Socialism, in the same vein as Germany 1932, one step away from a military dictatorship.  On this point, Jefferson erred in creating the Virginia Constitution, for he discriminated against homosexuals in the document, going back on his own principles.  According to his own doctrine, the majority cannot over-ride that of a minority in the Democratic Republic.  That slavery and distinction of sexual preference was written into constitutions was an error and defect.  It allowed moral favoritism to exist to the detriment of total equality as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

The fact that religious leaders have been fanning the flames of class distinction in the name of moral rectitude is an indication they crave power over the population greater than what they have been granted.  Through their own venality, infidelity, moral turpitude, and lust for total control over the population (in the name of God, always) they have alienated large portions of the pluralistic society in which we live.

If they happen to win in the courts over the DOMA issue, they will have unwittingly opened the door to their own destruction by the State.  Soon the Federal government will be dictating to them who can and cannot marry, who can and cannot be a member of their congregations, and who can and cannot enter into their sanctuaries for the purpose of religious devotion.   These religions who are financing and perpetrating this persecution in the name of moral rectitude shall find themselves suddenly with the shoe on the other foot.  They will be staring at the government’s discrimination against them.  Not just the religions, but the homosexuals as well.  If this continues we shall continue to dissolve as One Nation under God, and become a people divided, just as the people of Germany became after WWI, ripening for the military dictatorship that took hold of their country and ultimately lead to their total subjugation.

When are you going to wake up and learn the lessons of history, fellow citizens?  Neither DOMA nor the homosexual movement to "grant" the right of marriage is preserving our Constitution, but destroying it.


Seth Smee

The God Complex

Coming Full Circle

To recap the issues of my first post, I ask this question: Would I do it (mortality) all again?

Not on my life, nor yours.  Anyone who would repeat their mortal experiences went through most of them where there is no light. Mormonism certainly had a lot of things backward, and only the intelligent ones figured out their exit from that crowd.

Supposedly the glory of God is intelligence according to Mormon dogma.  But that is the glory of Man, for God was made in Man’s image.  God, as recorded down through the ages of Man by his alleged representatives is capricious, vain, venal, and pissed off with His creatures a hell of a lot.  Pauline Christianity asserted that God is Love, but you would never know it by the acolyte’s deportment, and most especially by the priestly caste.  It is commonly accepted in Western Society that religion is the purveyor and protectorate of moral rectitude.  My present (ex)Catholic neighbor still is much disabused by the idea for sure.  But no one can look at the history of Christianity, nor religion of any faction and conclude it has been free of violence, suffering, death, but possessed of an over-all absence of intelligence.  Where does one find God acting with love, compassion, forgiveness, immutability, instructive, much less intelligently?  By the way, does God have a personal name, and why so much fear associated with the mere speaking of it?  And too, where has He been down through the ages that He has been too busy to make Himself personally known to His creatures?  From whence came this Almighty disdain for personally nurturing and cultivating His “offspring?”

If God is such a great guy (or gal as feminists like to wag), why did He appoint the least able people to go around proclaiming His virtues and His will?  These people are invariably the variety that can’t find anything else better to do with their short-term mortal existence than to meddle in other person’s lives, heralding the validity of God at the least, and dictating behavior at the worst.  Inspection of their personal affairs reveals they can’t even manage the daily acts of cleaning up after their own shit—er keep their own house in order, as it were.  But the True Believers among them do mean to rule the lives of everyone within their sphere of influence—a sphere that like Boyle’s gas law, enlarges to fill the Void.

I have termed the actions of such people in its cornucopia of (mis)behavioral qualities the God Complex.  It is evident everywhere, once attuned to it.

You see, I could never quite get the concept of reincarnation.  A person gets to live again, perhaps repeatedly, until (s)he “gets it right.”  But there’s no telling if getting it right has happened before the end of life.  If ever Life were to have meaning at all, it certainly would have to be bound up in the simple idea that a person would know why they exist, what they’re doing on this planet in a fleshly body, and what is expected to be accomplished during its brief existence.  For Reincarnationists, this is the mystery of godliness (or Creation if you must).  For Mormons, it’s trying to fathom how a person can be like God and acquire Intelligence without offending their overseers.  And for heaven’s sake, DON’T take the mystery out of God!  The entire house of cards might collapse, and then what would the vain, God fearing people do with their puny, trivial lives?  Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher. (Ecclesiastes 1:2ff)  Did the “Preacher” know who was truly vain?  Helping profession my itchy ass.  Man helps himself who promotes God.

For myself, there has been far too much God Complex to want to do any of it again.  Talk about vanity.  By the time I acquired self-awareness, I was beset with affliction by persons suffering from the Complex.  I was lazy, they asserted vehemently.  Further, I deliberately didn’t do what I was told to properly, or worse yet, didn’t do what was expected WITHOUT being told what those expectations were, much less having been intelligently instructed on how to carry them out.  This God Complex permeated every nook and cranny, every crook and nanny of my relations.  Parents behaved this way.  Teachers, Priests, labor bosses, Police, Bureaucrats.  All “ministers” of the public “good” and domestic tranquility.  Even most of my so-called friends could not resist.  Is it any wonder that scapegoating (otherwise defined as fool, sap, butt, dupe, sucker, victim) is an integral part of the mystery of Atonement?  You’ve got to hand it to the Hebrews, they are the earliest known race to have figured out how to blame someone else for one’s own shortfall, and turn redemption into a mystery.

The God Complex IS the oldest profession.  Prostitution has honor in it at least. In that profession you know what is expected and get what you pay for.

I confess, I succumbed at an early age to engaging in the Complex.  Survival in this world’s social relations seems to be predicated on its astute adoption.  By the time I became responsible for the nurturance and survival of my own bambinos I was well on my way to “offending these little ones”.  They would be hard-pressed to concede I didn’t deliberately try to harm them.  During those moments when I could grasp the consequences of those acts, the remorse was overwhelming.  But still it did not bring forth “fruit”.  It took the death of my only (then) son to shore up the resolve to abandon the Complex.  It was a bit of a selfish act, seeking redemption for my misdeeds in bringing a second son into this disconcerted world.  If ever there were a true mystery and miracle, it was that the first son was restored to life, and the second has had an even chance at transcending the Complex.  The first son returned to make it all possible, and I don’t know of a sacrifice more substantive and meaningful, or purposeful, than that.  This Crucifixion business as promulgated by Pauline Christians is no equal to it.

In this vaunted era of advanced standard of living, the God Complex has virtually extinguished all freedom, Natural Rights, real science, and intelligence.  It has closed the gap between Religion and State, enclosing every facet of human sociality and suppressing individuality through conformity.  At its very heart is the paradigm so often heard among the peasantry: “there ought to be a law…” .  Justice is no longer conceived of as fairness, but as retribution.  The Catholic mantra repeated every Sunday in mass is regurgitated during the week as you have sinned, you have sinned, you have sinned, and for that you must pay.  There can be no redemption, either civilly or religiously, for mercy has been removed from the courts.  Thanks to GW Bush’s administration (and the peasantry who hailed and fought for it), all those Rights have been removed right along with Habeas Corpus.  A person can languish in jail indefinitely without due process.  Such is the socially advanced civilization some now proclaim exceeds the ancient Golden Age.

As has been remarked in earlier generations, choosing between two evils is still choosing evil.  Which is better for the restoration of freedom and social fecundity, a political candidate who is a Mormon in his ethical persuasion (now that IS a non sequitur!), or an alleged Mohammedan incumbent with a political history in the G.W. Bush eclat?  I would call upon God with His name at this point if I could learn it….

For those of you thankfully uninitiated to Mormonism’s philosophy, there is no earthly or heavenly institution more centered on oligarchy (Article 12).  Dictation is its modus operandi.  Oh yes, they preach Agency, but only if you keep to yourself and never divulge to anyone you have a differing view.  They avow freedom of conscience and expression of thought (Article 11), but not within the hallowed walls of their religious palaces.  And most definitely not anywhere your “misbehavior” may cast aspersion on their sacred institution and leading priests.  Despotism doesn’t just thrive in Mormonism, it is the very essence of its founding paradigm.  For those peasants who are obsessed with “there ought to be a law” paradigm, the choice of Presidential candidate is a hard one indeed (but not for Mormons—they have been dictated who to vote for).  Do you choose the "underdog" with charm, or the businessman who inherited his wealth, never having had to really work a day in his life to survive? Both profess they have nothing better to do with their lives than force you to be a “better” person by the instrument of the law.  They’re making a difference you know.

Come ON people!  Where does this God Complex come from?  The aristocrats and the oligarchs?  They didn’t materialize in a vacuum.  They were produced by a society that cherishes and sustains irresponsibility and scapegoating.  Every night on the news you hear someone wanting to “make a difference”, and it universally entails not changing their personal life, their attitudes, beliefs, credos and the rest.  It entails trying to improve someone else’s lot.  Not by invitation, but by vanity, and believe it or not, a colossal insecurity complex that is the byproduct of the God Complex.

There isn’t going to be another round of this.  I would not do any of it again.  Nada.  Nix the thought from the peabrain.  There is no intelligence in it.  In the movie  Defending Your Life, it is no coincidence Mr. Miller must break the rules to break the cycle, and is applauded by Mr. Diamond, his counsel, for it.

It is said by psychiatrists (the high priests to the Oligarchs) that the definition of insanity is to continue doing what you are doing, but expecting different results.  The late Laurence Gardner lets the cat out in his Origin of God, although he consumes a substantial amount of pulp before getting around to the fraud.

In my life's next round, I’ll be looking for a society that has put aside vanity.  Wish me luck.

Seth Smee

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

Of Metaphor and Myth; The Creation

Except perhaps in the office of the psychotherapist, nowhere is the use of metaphor more common, and embellished than that found in religion.  In all the major religions we observe the same themes, and they are derivations of a much older mythology.  Indeed, when one comes to grips with the Creation mytheme, it is clearly evident the Creation story as told in Mormon literature is more corrupt than that of the ancient Semitic. 

Margaret Barker has demonstrably shown that the Semitic account of Creation and the ancient Priestly Order is a production of the Deuteronomists, who systematically rewrote the ancient history as had among the pre-Exilic Israelites.  Throughout the Old Testament texts the credibility of Israel’s priests and religious dogma reverberates, as though these ancient priests were compelled to prove their authenticity.  Superimposed on the credibility theme is an intense sense of inferiority, as though these priests of the post-exilic period had something to hide. Their transition from a belief in a pantheon of Gods to the One True God was so loudly heralded that the world has been in conflict over whose God is the True God ever since.  Millions of lives have been decimated througout the ensuing millennia over this conflict.  At the microscopic level we have Protestants accusing Mormons they worship a different Jesus than found in the Bible.  At the macroscopic level we have a remnant of the Khazars, a bunch of Turks who converted to Judaism, attempting to re-establish their world dominance, not just as rulers, but as the only pure, chosen people of God to inherit the earth via the New World Order.  It is no coincidence those wandering Turks adopted Judaism; the Israelites were also once known as the Shepherd peoples, a nomadic bunch who constantly squabbled with one another over territory and supremacy.  The inferiority complex is indeed quite ancient, and actually has its roots in the Fall, Flood, and the expulsion from “Paradise.”

For many years studying the Mormon Enochic and Mosaic accounts I stumbled repeatedly in my effort to reconcile those accounts with the more ancient, commonly known texts.  Nothing would line up.  There were only fragments that seemed to correlate, and then the whole assemblage would collapse as the respective stories diverged.  I discovered that at the Council of Nicea, the book of Enoch was discarded as heretical in favor of John’s Revelation, and was much perplexed by this.  Why would a bunch of priests of dubious authority collectively eschew an ancient text in favor of a more recent “vision” which is clearly as metaphorical as the Nostradamus quatrains?  Every religious prognosticator since that Council has attempted to align John’s vision with contemporary events, down to the most recent declaration of World’s End on May 21st, 2011.  The most common explanation is that the doctrines promulgated in the Enochic text were incompatible with the conception of God contemporary with the Nicean priests. My frustration was only heightened attending the Mormon temple and memorizing the Creation account presented there verbatim.  It wasn’t long before inconsistencies and a clear message of capriciousness in the behavior of the Gods solidified.  It soon became evident to me the Mormon Creation story was a jumbled mass of various themes thrown together in an attempt to recreate the much older Deutronomic account.  Just as a person naturally maneuvers to different areas of a grand, 1000 piece puzzle to fill in the obscure areas, so I was driven to drop this line of study of the Creation and begin elsewhere for more information.  Oddly enough, I stumbled on to a new vector while studying the most recent postulates concerning the Cosmos in the field of electricity.

It seems there is a confluence of research in various scientific disciplines, all pointing to a common origin.  Plasma physics has entered the realm of astrophysics in an attempt to explain observations and make predictions that are repeatable.  Astrophysics is the business of trying to explain the origin of the Universe, and subsequently our solar system.  And it’s theories and postulates have failed miserably until the entrance of plasma physics to the scene.  In a similar vein, researchers of the world’s Mythology were unsuccessful for centuries in completely explaining the motifs and symbology found around the world, all pointing to a common theme.  Again, enter the science of electrified plasma and suddenly the symbols and metaphors of the Creation Myths are identified and unlocked.  When researcher Dave Talbott was introduced to plasma physics by physicist Wal Thornhill, and Dave’s work verified to stunning accuracy by plasma physicist Anthony Peratt, suddenly the ancient Myths took on a new dimension of clarity and meaning.  In the midst of this artifact researcher Klaus Donna has conclusively shown the pre-megalithic ancient world not only spoke and wrote one common language, but were well acquainted with other civilized areas of the planet and traded commodities long before conventional science allows metal tools.  The material these researchers are bringing together is an unprecedented cohesive view not only of our planet’s history, but also its cosmological genesis.  The picture of our past, the origin of religions, the origin of Man, the concept of the Gods are all being laid out and identified in a cohesive Creation account, tying together virtually everything man knows about his past.

Some of the themes that never made sense to me in the Mormon Creation account are:

War in Heaven
Tree of Life
Son of the Morning
The Morning Star
The Serpent and its conflation with the Old Testament Jehovah
The Dragon who wars with the archangels
The Entwined Serpents as the symbol of Eternal Life
Paradise and the Garden of Eden
The creation of Adam and Eve
Eve’s seduction and the Fall
Creation of physical elements by unresurrected spiritual beings
Casting of Lucifer and his angels to the earth

Little did I know at the time I attended the temple ceremonies that an understanding of these themes could not be had by literal interpretation, but by metaphor.  All of these and many more are identified and have a logical context when interpreted by the tools of science applied to the metaphorical symbols of the Creation Myth.  Our ancient progenitors knew what they were talking about with regard to the Flood, the Fall, Paradise, one language, a time before the earth was divided, and their metaphorical use of Gods to explain the events of the Fall from Paradise.  It becomes clear what the Deuteronomist priests were up to when they subverted the Sumerian Creation Myth to their own purposes in re-establishing a nation once decimated for their intolerance, fundamentalism, and genocide.

Suddenly the pieces began to fit in this master puzzle, and the repercussion relative to Mormonism is simply that Joseph Smith never had a single revelation as purported in Mormon literature.  His Mosaic and Enochic accounts are as much a fraud as his Abrahamic account was shown to be nearly a half century past.  The entire structure of “scripture” invented from remnants of the Creation Myth derived from the Deuteronomist subversion crumbles, and with it, the entire Creation story of the temple as well as the Plan of Salvation.  The conflicting view of Christ as benevolent and long suffering with the vengeful Christ punishing His people disappears.  The mystery of the Atonement dissolves and is replaced with a more meaningful, gentler monograph of man’s fallible nature and his escape from that fallibility.

The phrase “All roads lead to Rome” is equally applicable to the evidence surrounding the fraudulent nature of the “Restoration” as proclaimed by Joseph Smith; the science, the mythology, the inconsistencies in doctrines, the disparity of his historical character as opposed to that propagandized, the lack of clear, unequivocal evidence for priesthood authority, and the bastardizing of Masonic ritual in the attempt to create a cult of loyal followers who would take the heat whenever he was found in violation of civil law.  In like manner, the growth of the three major religions on this planet and their roots in Egyptian-cum-Sumerian origin becomes manifest.

With the collaboration of researchers around the world we now have keys that unlock the stories of Man’s past, and the planet upon which he resides.  Our presence here is at once much older than the biblical account, and much younger than traditional science has pontificated.  It is an exciting and exhilarating experience to discover one’s connection and position in History, and to equally place the earth in the proper context of the Cosmos in a Creation story that answers and explains cultural heritage around the world and throughout recorded history.

SethSmee

Integrity and Conscience

My Departure from Mormonism

On May 6, 2007 I resigned membership in the CJCLDS, and excommunicated its authorities and organization from my life.  My reasons in detail are plethora, but can be summarized as Behavior Unbecoming of Professed Representatives of Christ.  In order to make such a valid declaration a person would need to know the personality of Christ.  That knowledge I do have, obtaining it by degrees from 1988 through 2003 in personal visitations.  Because of those experiences I can say without equivocation the church and its hierarchy from the top down know nothing of the Redeemer.

Summary list

Failure of the attitudes and actions of church officials to exemplify the doctrines and life of Jesus, and denials of convicting evidence, to wit:

• Deliberate disparity between official Mormon history and the applicable civil and personal records, particularly of the founders.
• Warring against: 1) homosexuals both spiritually and civilly, 2) women who stand up for equality and dignity, 3) intellectuals who in the pursuit of Godly intelligence discover anomalies in past & present doctrines, lies, subterfuge, and illegal political pandering.
• Attempt by church officials to manipulate or behavior modify sexual preference by the use of pornographic materials on the BYU campus where possession of such materials is grounds for university dismissal and church disfellowship.  The use of millions of member’s monetary offerings to persecute homosexuals through political action to strip this minority of rights granted under the US Constitution.  Failure to abide by civil law to report child sexual abuse by church authorities and the implementation of established church sanctions against guilty church officials.  Minimization and harassment of the victims of sexual abuse by church officials to evade culpability. 
• Deliberate rewrite of the church’s history to cover up the murder of members and non-members, including extortion, lies and perjury, sexual and physical abuse, spousal & family abandonment. Illegal marriages, seduction and membership blackmail of underage women, embezzlement of member’s estates, all performed by church authorities at high levels, and destruction of the family unit whenever it may conflict with the church’s public image.
• Fear, shame and guilt are the chief methods of motivation. Conflicting doctrines taught by various members of the Twelve since the church’s founding are now denied and often discredited by contemporary church officials.
• Continual denigration of men as family heads, castigation of fathers for a son’s mission non-preparedness, confinement of men and women to constrictive roles and subservience, the insistence that men cannot nurture as well as women, and other demeaning messages which destroy personal dignity, family unity and happiness.
• Deliberate historical obfuscation of the so-called Priesthood restoration events not only showing it was a later addition to the doctrines long after the church was organized, but also their authenticity is highly dubious.
• Perpetration of cult practices, particularly unquestioning loyalty to church officers. Suppression of crucial historical information, and the complete disregard for one’s own conscience or relationship with Deity in deference to First Presidency declarations.
• The suppression of critical information relevant to Joseph Smith’s numerous conflicting First Vision accounts which demonstrably show embellishment with time, and conceals the fact that no one in or out of the church, including Joseph's family of origin, had ever heard of the First Vision before 1840.  Joseph's mother claims in her autobiography written after his death that Joseph's first vision experience was in his bedroom with an angel.  Orson Pratt personally published the first known account in a pamphlet that merely mentions two unidentified personages.  In 1842 Orson Hyde in his published version said that angels were committed the power, and that Jesus Himself (as Father AND Son) therefore would not personally do so.  Since this vision was unknown Joseph is lying about being persecuted for this vision from the time of 1820 forward in his final vision account published in the Pearl of Great Price.  Joseph Fielding Smith asserted in Doctrines of Salvation I that Joseph should be exposed as a deceiver and impostor if his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, subsequently manifesting errors and contradictions. Hugh B. Brown stated in his book The Abundant Life (which view is later reiterated by Gordon Hinckley) declares that if the First Vision is a figment of Joseph's imagination then the Church is indeed a wicked and deliberate imposture.
• Obvious impossibilities in the Book of Mormon; Jaredites taking animals into ships too small for them, their feed, & fresh water, impossible waste disposal, and being tossed on the water for a year (344 days).  Nephi having a knowledge of cement, carpentry, metalworking, building construction, sailing, navigation, shipbuilding, expert hunting, smelting and mining, languages and writing before the age of 25—after having been in the wilderness for 8 years when actual Hebrew history and archeology shows a dearth of knowledge in these disciplines at the time of Zedekiah.  Evidence of advanced writing and construction skills during this period is unknown.  Numerous examples too many to list.
• Glaring differences between the temple construction and iconography of today, claimed as revelation by Joseph and Brigham, and the known temple construction, iconography, and symbology of the original temples of Israel.  Inconsistencies in the Creation story presented in the temple (a product of the Deuteronomists in the sixth century BC), the disparity between the Cosmology taught by Joseph and 21st century observed astronomical phenomena.
• Failure of the church dogma to account for the world-wide creation myth found in every major civilization, different than the Creation story in the temple.  Indeed, the church’s temple Creation myth is a highly bastardized form of the ancient Semitic creation myth which they borrowed from the Sumerian cult of Inanna.
• Scientific and professional proof suppressed and publication of rationalized excuses to discredit the discovery the Book of Abraham translation is a fraud. Suppression of scientific proof the Kinderhook plates are genuine 1843 productions, validating the producers' story of their attempt to expose Joseph as a fraudulent seer.
• Failure of numerous prophecies by past presidents/prophets of the church.  Two examples of many are the assertion that the CJCLDS is the stone cut out of the mountain foreseen by Daniel, when in fact history both modern and ancient demonstrate it is no such thing.  The assertion the Lord would return and the millenium begin in 1891, along with prophesying many early 20th century church members then living would see His return in Glory who are now dead.
• Evidence recently published conclusively proves Sidney Rigdon and Parley Pratt were involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon manuscript, Sidney stealing the manuscript upon which the Book of Mormon is based, and had ties to Joseph Smith before joining the CJCLDS.  This evidence also proves unequivocally that Sidney often lied about his involvement with Joseph, and verifies eye-witness accounts of Sidney’s mendacity.  This evidence also conclusively shows Sidney’s authorship of early CJCLDS revelations published in the Book of Commandments and large portions of the Book of Mormon. CJCLDS authorities deny the credibility of this evidence.
• The Urim and Thumim of ancient times is known to be precious gems, part of priestly vestment and never was a breast-plate of metal with clear stones set in a crossbow.
• The room in which Moroni was supposed to have appeared to Joseph Smith is too small to accommodate anyone over six feet high except at the roof apex, precluding a man of large stature standing above the floor without his shoulders also penetrating the roof.
• For fifty years the church spent member’s money searching central America for geological, cultural, and historical evidence to support the Book of Mormon story only to find no shred of credible evidence firmly establishing the existence of Lehite/Ishamaelite/Mulekite/Jaredite civilizations.
• The admission by Joseph Smith twice in separate arraignments for the same offense; that he engaged in glass-looking and spiritualism as a means of providing income for his parents and siblings.  Subsequent admission of the same late in life to a member that the church was created to care for his family’s temporal needs.  This founding principle has been enlarged to include spiritual extortion, requiring commitment of all one's time and talent to building the church on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged to whom they offer token support only.
• The First Presidency’s demand of a full account of one’s sins, whether repented of or not, in order to qualify for a marriage sealing cancellation.  Jesus in the New Testament makes no such requirement, and even in Mormon doctrine, the D&C holds that forgiveness must be extended to all men and remembered no more.

Conclusions

No genuine disciple of Christ would deny anyone membership in Christ’s church based on genetic sexual variation or gender discrimination, especially when the early church of Christ had female apostles who also laid on hands, or in the quest for knowledge and Godly intelligence questions arise concerning history, authority, and deliberate mendacity of CJCLDS authorities.  No genuine disciple of Christ would disparage the value of such persons while proclaiming the worth of every soul.  Christ’s qualification for membership in His “church” was penitence and baptism, nothing more.  No mention was ever made of Him casting people out of any assembly except the money-changing thieves in the Temple.

No genuine disciple of Christ would lay claim to prophethood without manifesting a personal account of ascension and transformation coupled with prophetic sight, as happened to all the ancient genuine prophets.

No genuine disciple of Christ would lie to save their ass whether in public or private.

No genuine disciple of Christ has need to hear or review for any cause another person’s “sins”, nor the explicit details of such.

No genuine disciple of Christ has need to obfuscate, suppress, rationalize, or rewrite Church history nor deny the facts when brought to light, which is an obvious attempt to whitewash the sepulchre.  Such action is prima facie evidence of and participation in fraud.

Because of this behavior of the authorities past and present of the CJCLDS, their fraudulent historical publications, and the silence of the Redeemer during His visitations to me on all issues concerning the CJCLDS, I am compelled to conclude His prophecy in Matthew 7 refers to CJCLDS authorities as much as the Scribes and Pharisees of His day.  Therefore in good conscience and to disassociate myself from the repugnant character of these men I excommunicated them all from my society and departed from their evil practices.

Seth Smee
11-30-08