Fictitious Priesthood Ordination Ages of the Patriarchs NOW Exposed!

[Shulem]

I’ve read all the scriptures twice. I’m ready to be ordained to the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God. Now that I’m 10, I feel as ready as Noah to climb new heights.

I am a descendant of Cain. Ordain me.

[Shulem]

The idea that Mahalaleel was 496 years old when he was ordained is just as incredible as the idea that there is a king’s name given in the characters above Fig. 2 of Facsimile No. 3. Both revelations given by Joseph Smith are false. There is no king’s name in the hieroglyphic writing of Facsimile No. 3. Neither was a fictional man in the bible ordained at the age of 496.

The idea that Noah was ordained to the priesthood at the age of 10 is just as incredible as the idea that the name “Shulem” is represented by the characters above the hand of Fig. 5 in Facsimile No. 3. The hieroglyphic writing does not contain the fictitious name of “Shulem” and neither does the statement of Noah being ordained at age 10 make any sense.

It certainly seems that Joseph Smith was selling the saints a bill of goods. The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 of the Book of Abraham are certainly proof of that. Not just evidence, but proof!

[Shulem]

The fantastic story of the long-life spans of mythical biblical patriarchs and Smith’s fictitious priesthood ordination ages pulled out of his hat are one of the most ridiculous claims asserted by Mormonism. In order to believe it one must check their brain in at the front door of the LDS chapel and submit themselves to punishing blows against their intelligence as they surrender themselves to the ridiculous claims made by a mindset of retarded thinking. Equally fascinating as the ridiculous claims themselves is that the Church continues to publish and assert these things as gospel truth and the Church expects its members to believe it just as much as it must believe anything else the Church claims to be true. The Church claims that all truth is as one great whole and no single truth is truer than another.

I bear my testimony that I know the Church is not true.

Amen.

[Kishkumen]

So, this thread is really, really cool, except for the part where you bring in the same tired complaints about Joseph Smith messing up. Joseph Smith was playing around with numerology, which is obvious as early as the Book of Mormon. It is great to see you work all of this out because, with the right background knowledge, you will start to understand why it is Joseph Smith was doing what he was doing, not just that he was doing it.

Foundation mythology often tries to reconcile what is with what one imagines it should be. What should be is the ideal, whereas the way things are is, of course, less than ideal. Number is one obvious way of trying to bring the two into alignment. So, Joseph Smith is writing foundation mythology, or, rather, rewriting it, or perhaps writing it in a new version. The fact that he gets the importance of numerology in these kinds of stories is actually pretty impressive, and he gets it before 1830. The guy seems to have known a fair amount more, and to have put a lot more thought into his work than most people realize.

I am glad you at least see the work being done.

[Philo Sofee]

I do think the literalizing tendencies of the incredible age of the Patriarchs is to miss out of a dimension, as Kish is hinting. Sure, we know Mormons literalize everything (in large part, thanks to Joseph Smith doing so himself), but I can't help but think there is some symbolizing going on also. The ancient mysteries are chock full of this type of learning and hints all over the place.

[Ryan Larsen]

I read quite a bit of this thread, although I haven’t fully digested the proposed methodology.

On the question of lifespan, some scientists today think we’ve misunderstood the aging process. Harvard Professor David Sinclair recently wrote a book called “Lifespan,” subtitled, “why we age and why we don’t have to.”

It seems there’s some evidence that the body can keep repairing dna - so dna damage isn’t the “cause” of aging, per se. This makes sense, since our cells came from cells which came from cells which came from cells… going back a long time.

Epigenetic changes seem to be the culprit. At least according to this new approach. The body institutes changes according to a schedule or “clock” - for example, it doesn’t start puberty when you are 4 years old, but waits until other processes are implemented first.

The problem is evidently that the epigenome eventually starts making changes which cause negative impacts. The body causes it’s own aging, it looks like. And it looks like it might be reversible.

[Shulem]

I am glad you at least see the work being done.

I’m glad you took time to look over this thread and examine the contents. I trust you learned something and are able to assemble pieces of the puzzle in an a more organized manner than perhaps most people are capable of doing. I do believe this thread is very helpful in seeing how Smith depended on his manuscripts and referred to them as often as needed to build upon his narrative.

If I was a faithful member of the Church today I would be asking the Church to own up on many of the points I’ve made in this thread because I find it all rather disturbing and serious questions deserve serious answers. But I doubt the Church would bother to answer my questions. I also doubt other Church scholars including those at the Joseph Smith Papers have put these matters together as I have in this thread. I tend to think this is groundbreaking material and an examination of facts and data from a perspective that has not been previously considered or at least discussed or published. I could be wrong about that but I’ve never heard about the things I’ve been pointing out in this thread from all my previous years of studying Mormonism. Have you?

So, I feel that I’m breaking new ground and I like that feeling. It makes me feel somewhat accomplished. Just think what you might not know had I not started this thread and shared my insight. Think about that. I just want to be appreciated if but just a little bit.

[Shulem]

I do think the literalizing tendencies of the incredible age of the Patriarchs is to miss out of a dimension, as Kish is hinting. Sure, we know Mormons literalize everything (in large part, thanks to Joseph Smith doing so himself), but I can't help but think there is some symbolizing going on also. The ancient mysteries are chock full of this type of learning and hints all over the place.

Smith was in the KNOW and was making everything up as he went along. If he thought everything he made up through his fantastical revelations really was literal then truly he was deranged. But I think it was a pious fraud and he knew better. He wanted to found a new Church that was bigger and better than all the other churches. He wanted to supersede Catholicism and outperform the Reformation. He would do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal including making up numbers out of thin air and keeping it a secret. The priesthood ordination ages are no more valid than the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. It’s all bogus.

[Shulem]

I read quite a bit of this thread, although I haven’t fully digested the proposed methodology.

Clearly you can see that the ages Smith used for priesthood ordination don’t follow a consistent methodology and one number suddenly is better than another number for no reason at all. From what I see in the manuscripts there is truly a sense of disjointed inconsistency.

[Ryan Larsen]

I read quite a bit of this thread, although I haven’t fully digested the proposed methodology.

Clearly you can see that the ages Smith used for priesthood ordination don’t follow a consistent methodology and one number suddenly is better than another number for no reason at all. From what I see in the manuscripts there is truly a sense of disjointed inconsistency.

It does look like there’s more going on than meets the eye. I just don’t know what that is.