Fictitious Priesthood Ordination Ages of the Patriarchs NOW Exposed!

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Fictitious Priesthood Ordination Ages of the Patriarchs NOW Exposed!

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:21 pm
Shulem wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:36 pm
The story of Noah, the ark, and all the animals is nothing more than a story made up by people who had a primitive understanding of earth and science. IT DID NOT HAPPEN! I so testify of that!
Doesn't that throw a wrench in the entire Mormon story, unless as Sledge proposes, it is all fiction?

Yes, the whole thing comes to a grinding halt! Modern people today and in the future who are enlightened will realize it’s nothing more than a story to promote faith in a religious way of life.

Image

  • And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark
  • And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth
  • Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered
  • Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark
  • And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat
Brack
CTR B
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:58 pm

Re: Fictitious Priesthood Ordination Ages of the Patriarchs NOW Exposed!

Post by Brack »

Moksha wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:09 am
There was an incredible selection of animals living in Missouri before the flood. Kangaroos, polar bears, penguins, pandas, lions, tigers, koalas, skeevers, ostriches, yaks, llamas, elephants, hyenas, unicorns, and a hundred thousand other species. How was the ark able to drop them off in various parts of the world?

I thought that Noah had his ark built within North or South Carolina.

"...and that in or near Carolina Noah built his remarkable ship, in which he, his family, and all kinds of animals lived a few days over one year without coming out of it…" - Link

"The source of the story seems to be Oliver B. Huntington. Three of the four accounts state South not North Carolina and are from articles in the 1890s. This “claim” is absolutely not an official LDS teaching." - Link
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Mahalaleel’s “seven days”

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:14 pm

D&C 107:46 wrote:Mahalaleel was four hundred and ninety-six years and seven days old when he was ordained by the hand of Adam, who also blessed him.

Now we learn that Mahalaleel, next in the line of succession, at the hand of Adam, was ordained at the age of 496 years
and 7 days”!

Image
Red Flag!

With 496 years gone by we are also informed that there were an additional 7 days in which poor Mahalaleel had to wait. This is the second time Smith provides a fractional number to the ordination age, the first being 34 years and an even “4 months” for Enos. So, what’s up with the 7 days for Mahalaleel? Why didn’t the other patriarchs have months or days applied to their ordination dates? The omission would seem to imply that the other patriarchs were ordained on their birthdays except for Mahalaleel & Enos who broke ranks with the birthday ordination rite. Or, could it mean something else? I think it means something else whereby Smith was mixing things up and attempting to keep the story interesting. The use of “seven days” wasn’t necessary to inform readers that Mahalaleel was finally ordained. 496 years had gone by and that in and of itself is more than enough information. The additional seven days in the narrative raises a red flag! This is Smith’s subtle attempt to create a dramatic effect or add a little zest to the punchline but more especially to make it seem biblical in numerical nature. Smith’s narrative makes no effort to explain why nearly 500 years had passed and why this patriarch was being ordained out of order considering that three of his patriarchal predecessors were his descendants.

The “seven days” was used by Smith to make his story seem biblical and give it flair and mystery. But it’s all part of Smith’s big lie in which he was making the whole thing up from start to finish. The revelation of the Doctrine and Covenants is the result of an active and creative mind at work pretending to channel God’s word for the whole world. Smith was well aware that “seven days” was a common theme in the bible used in many special circumstances and a varity of religious services. The Law of Moses used seven days for unleavened bread, purification rites, feasts, and consecration rituals. All of this of course was long after Mahalaleel’s lifetime and was on the other side of the Flood. But Smith knew that using the number 7 would make his revelation look special.

Here is a small sampling of other applications when “seven days” was used in the bible that Smith would have been familiar with:

  • For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth
  • (Joseph) made a mourning for his father seven days
  • And seven days were fulfilled, after that the Lord had smitten the river
  • And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days
  • By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days

Now with all that said, what are the odds that Smith would choose the number 7 rather than 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9? The odds are 1 in 9 that Smith would pick lucky 7. Then the odds must be taken into consideration that Smith could have chosen any number from 10-364 rather than just the single digit of 7.

Yes, I think Smith was purposely attempting to make his story look biblical and give it a subtle sense of credibility that the subconscious mind would appreciate. Smith was fooling his readers and followers by employing subtle tricks to his trade.

For those who are interested in further exploring how Smith used biblical numbers to spice up his Book of Mormon, I highly recommend Solomon's 1,005 Songs = Alma's 1,005 martyred Lamanites located in the Terrestrial Forum of this board. (Caution, the Terrestrial Board is not as polite and can sometimes be offensive to critical readers on both sides of the argument)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

A 10 year old boy

Post by Shulem »

Now, we finally reach the breaking point concerning the patriarchal priesthood ordinations of the chosen lineage and the ages Smith assigned to those ordinations. We only need turn to D&C 107:52 and discover that “Noah was ten years old when he was ordained under the hand of Methuselah” and we are left to wonder if it’s a typo or a joke. By what right or religious reasoning does Smith think Noah was entitled to priesthood ordination as a pre-pubescent boy? The very assertion would eclipse Jesus visiting the temple when 12 years old. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament had fundamental respect for the appropriate age with regard to ministry and priesthood. The rite of passage for a young man is a fundamental principle that is common in all societies and religion.

Why did Smith think to have Noah ordained by his grandfather Methuselah? Why didn’t his father Lamech ordained him or get mentioned? It makes no sense that a 10-year-old boy was ordained by his grandfather rather than his own father! Adam and Seth couldn’t have performed the ordination because they had previously passed and Enoch was translated so why did Joseph Smith assign Methuselah? It makes little sense.

When Noah was ordained, Enos the 3rd Patriarch was still alive and lived for another 74 years as senior patriarch of the human race. Cainian, Mahalaleel, and Jared were also alive. But most important, Noah’s own Patriarch, his very own father LAMECH was alive and lived for another 585 years before passing away just 5 years before the flood.

Joseph Smith’s story of Methuselah ordaining Noah is out of order and unacceptable. It takes things to the breaking point when asked to believe that the grandfather takes precedence over the father. Surely 10-year-old Noah would have preferred his own father to ordain him to the office of Patriarch, moreover, surely father Lamech would have taken the natural honor to ordain his own son.

So, why did Joseph Smith assign the age of 10 to Noah? I suspect there are various reasons behind it and a model in which Smith used in making it all up.
Last edited by Shulem on Mon May 23, 2022 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Brack
CTR B
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:58 pm

Re: Fictitious Priesthood Ordination Ages of the Patriarchs NOW Exposed!

Post by Brack »

Why didn’t his father Lamech ordained him or get mentioned?


Because Lamech had a word of wisdom problem. He had a habit of drinking of the wine.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Fictitious Priesthood Ordination Ages of the Patriarchs NOW Exposed!

Post by Shulem »

Brack wrote:
Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:47 pm
Why didn’t his father Lamech ordained him or get mentioned?

Because Lamech had a word of wisdom problem. He had a habit of drinking of the wine.

Well, the bible doesn’t mention anything about Lamech having a word of wisdom problem whether it be wine or chewing tobacco but we do know that his son Noah whom Smith said was ordained at age 10 by his grandfather did in fact have a word of wisdom problem. You only need to turn to the bible to learn that Noah was a drunk and somewhat untidy, perhaps even lewd.

Genesis 9:2--22 wrote:And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

I do have more to say about Smith’s alleged ordination of a 10-year old boy being ordained by the grandfather rather than the father or the senior patriarch alive at that time. I suspect, it’s possible, Smith messed up and may have mistakenly thought Methuselah was the father of Noah and never realized his error.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Ten Years Old

Post by Shulem »

It’s a very odd thing that Joseph Smith assigns the age of 10 whereby Noah is ordained with the priesthood. Noah was a child, a prepubescent, hardly a man capable of assuming such responsibility of his own free will and accord. It seems it was foisted upon him as if mandated by powers that would control his own destiny. A child being ordained to a man’s responsibility is most peculiar, indeed!

Age 10 is reminiscent of when Mormon received the plates (Mormon 1:2) in which a mere boy is assuming responsibility that far exceeds normal expectations that any adult might expect from a lad.

The stories Smith provides about 10 year old boys does not ring true to my ears. It seems like fiction or moreover Smith was trying to liken it to himself thinking back when he was but a youth. I venture to guess that Smith was delving into his own personal fantasies that he began to develop as a youth. Thus, the boy Joseph would get the plates! The boy Joseph would get the priesthood! why do I get the feeling that Smith was writing himself into his own stories for some kind of personal fulfillment to satisfy his own vanity?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Fictitious Priesthood Ordination Ages of the Patriarchs NOW Exposed!

Post by Shulem »

The assertion of Noah being only ten years old when ordained to the priesthood does not have scriptural precedent, nor does it fit the rites and practice of ancient Israel. Shortly after the publication of the Book of Mormon, Smith revealed to the Church that children were to be taught the gospel and could therefore commit to the ordinance of baptism when eight years old. Ordination to the priesthood was available to adult men.

Along with the law of circumcision given to Abraham, Smith’s new translation of the Book of Genesis (17:11,12) reaffirms eternal laws which states that children must be at least eight years old and “that thou mayest know forever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.” Note that God says you shall know “forever” that age eight is the age for which children are held accountable. This hardly gives time for a ten-year-old boy (Noah) to ready himself for the priesthood. It makes no sense. A ten-year old boy is not capable of taking on that kind of responsibility and cannot understand the gravity and serious nature of assuming a responsibility of an adult. Hence, the priesthood was foisted upon the boy and in a sense, he was forced to assume the position. The bottom line, the young boy was abused and forced to assume something he wasn’t capable of understanding.

Ordaining priesthood power and responsibility upon the head of a ten-year-old boy is a form of religious brainwashing. No church today would ever perform that kind of rite upon a child. Smith’s story makes no sense. It’s pure fantasy on his part. Anyone with half a brain should be able to recognize that. It never happened!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Fictitious Priesthood Ordination Ages of the Patriarchs NOW Exposed!

Post by Shulem »

Apologists in defense of boy Noah receiving the priesthood at the mere age of 10 are going to assert the doctrine that Noah was preordained to that priesthood in the pre-existence. Thus, they conclude that Noah was foreordained as such to receive the priesthood in the so-called grand council of heaven before the earth was made. In other words, the boy Noah while on earth didn’t have a choice! He was commanded of his father to take upon himself the priesthood and this left him with no choice to choose for himself if a priesthood life was really what he wanted for himself. Where is the choice? Noah wasn’t foreordained -- HE WAS PREDESTINED WITHOUT HAVING FREE AGENCY TO CHOOSE! Life’s circumstances were forced upon Noah by his fathers and he had no choice but to comply. God called all the shots via the revelation from Joseph Smith that Noah would be ordained as a 10 year old boy whether he liked it or not. So much for the doctrine of free agency and choosing for yourself in whom ye will serve. Smith’s story does away with all that and opts for the doctrine of PREDESTINATION. This is something that strikes at the very heart of Mormonism!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Ten Years Old

Post by Shulem »

If Noah got to be ordained when he was 10 and later rule the whole world, why can’t I be ordained and rule my world? I’ve been baptized for 2 whole years!

I’m ready to hold the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.

Image
Post Reply