Ay-Ay-Ron

In this episode, Key and Peele's Ay-Ay-Ron gets the full Mormon Canon Project Treatment.  We dive into the first three articles of Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine: Aaron, Aaronic Priesthood, and Aaronites. As a result, we learn some surprising things about Old Testament historicity, the (un)importance of lineage in our assumptions about the priesthood, and the complete irrelevance of "Aaronites" in our understanding of what doctrine is. As always, please take the opportunity to weigh in at Canonizer.com as to what you think we got right and what we got wrong. 

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Speaker 1 0:04

Now a Ron , where are you? Where is a Ron right now? No, a Ron, huh ? Well, you better be sick. Dead all mute a Ron [inaudible]

Speaker 2 0:21

Iran is here in the Mormon Canon podcast. I'm Jim Bennett . I'm your host. Welcome back. Today we are going to get into the actual text of the articles of Bruce R. McConkey is Mormon doctrine. Then we're going to start with three articles right at the beginning, alphabetically chosen Aaron erotic priesthood and Aaron nights . I had never heard of Aaron before reading Mormon doctrine, but we're going to be comprehensive about this. We're going through every single one of the articles, which means we're going to have to deal with Aaron nights in a few other kind of silly articles that I think demonstrate one of the flaws of Mormon doctrine in that it tries to be comprehensive and therefore addresses a number of issues that nobody has ever raised. Have any of you ever been to church and had anybody talk about Aaron nights and anybody wondered what the official Mormon teaching on era nights is? Well, that's one of the problems we have here. I've taken the title of course from key and Peele sketch substitute teacher. I can't fully recommend it to anybody that might be offended by some of the profanity in it. I apologize. Let's get right into the doctrine to Aaron goes, the honor, as a perpetual Memorial through all generations of having his name used to identify the lesser Levitical or erotic priesthood. That is the first sentence in Bruce R McConkie. His article about Aaron and one of the things that I'm struck with is I read about this air and of course was Moses's older brother. He was Moses as spokesman and elder McConkie like latter day saints then and now treat Aaron as if he were a historical figure. And I don't know that a lot of people recognize that that's a somewhat controversial position to take. The consensus among modern Bible scholars is that the old Testament is not a historical record and that the early figures of the old Testament particularly were very likely mythological figures, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Adam, Noah, all of the patriarchs are considered to be stories that are symbolic, that teach principles that Israel needed to know. But the idea that there were actual people who lived these stories and lived through these miracles is something that most scholars today dismiss out of hand. Now, that dismissal also includes Moses based largely on the fact that there is no archeological evidence for the Exodus. And that's problematic for a number of reasons. If you had an entire nation enslaved in Egypt and being forced to build the pyramids and finally being led out of Egypt by Pharaoh's adopted son through a series of miracles that ends up with thousands of Egyptian soldiers being drowned in the middle of the red sea, you would assume there would be some kind of historical or archeological record to confirm that. And the reality is there is none. Now, what are the explanations for that? Well, according to Cecil B DeMille, it's very simple.

Speaker 1 3:30

Let the name of Moses, he's sticking from every book and Kaplan [inaudible] , he's drinking from all pilons and obelisks stricken from every monument of Egypt. [inaudible] at the name of Moses on the third and unspoken race from the memory of men all the time.

Speaker 2 4:09

So let it be written. So let it be done. That's the voice of sir Cedric Hardwick, playing Pharaoh SETI in the masterpiece, the 10 commandments, which informs I think what most people in and out of the church imagine Moses to be like. It's impossible to imagine Moses looking like anything other than Charlton Heston, but this is one of the arguments that people make in order to be able to allow for the possibility of a historical Moses is that there was a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the pharaohs to wipe out Moses's name from the historical record. Now, I don't find that to be a particularly compelling argument, but as far as Bruce R McConkie goes, there's no room for debate. Bruce R McConkey quotes extensively from his father in law, Joseph fielding Smith's book, doctrines of salvation, which gets a citation in the erotic priesthood article we're going to talk about in just a moment, but he takes issue. Joseph fielding Smith takes issue with those who would argue that Moses did not write the first five books of the old Testament. That is the historical traditional view that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and numbers were written by Moses himself. Scholars now say that these are oral traditions that were passed down for hundreds, if not thousands of years before anybody bothered to write them down. But according to Joseph fielding Smith from doctrines of salvation, page 565 quote today, there is more criticism and doubt thrown on the Bible and especially on the writings of Moses than in any previous time. Higher criticism has endeavored to destroy the authenticity of the five books of Moses and place the writing of them at a much later date. This revelation to Joseph Smith establishes the authenticity of the words of Moses and to every true latter day Saint. The question of the validity and authorship of the book of Genesis and other books of the scriptures is a settled question. The Lord has settled it by new revelation in the dispensation of the fullness of times close quote, so let it be written, so let it be done. This book, doctrines of salvation is written in the same sort of authoritative tone that we find in Mormon doctrine and this idea that this is a settled question that latter day saints are not allowed to believe that the first books of Moses were written by anyone other than Moses is the kind of pronouncement that I find problematic throughout Mormon doctrine because we don't have any scripture designating the first five books of Moses as being specifically written by Moses. However, Joseph fielding Smith is correct when he says that we do have latter day Saint revelation that points to Moses being a historical figure, specifically Moses, his appearance at the dedication of the Kirtland temple where he restores the keys to the gathering of Israel to Joseph Smith. That's very hard to do when you are a fictional character. By the same token, that's the argument used by people who try to insist that job was a historical figure. You're familiar with job . He's the character in the story about a bar bet between God and Satan about if Satan were to torture job with job continued to love God. I find the book of job extraordinarily problematic and I think there is very little, if any likelihood that any of it is based in historical reality where I to make that argument to Bruce R McConkie , he would no doubt point me to the 120 first section of the doctrine and covenants which was given to Joseph Smith while he was confined in Liberty jail. And in verse 10 of that section, the Lord says, thou are not yet as job by friends do not contend against the night or charge the with transgression as they did job. Could the Lord be comparing Joseph Smith to a fictional person and not a real person? Why not? I don't see any compelling reason why not. I think this puts it in a different place from where Moses is because I think Moses does have to show up in order to give the keys of the gathering of Israel. And we also have an appearance by Moses in the new Testament on the Mount of transfiguration. And I don't know any way to reconcile a belief in a mythological Jesus with full active activity in the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, but that's a whole other issue. We'll get into that as we go along, but looking at this, the book of job highlights the way I see most of the old Testament records, which is that there may have been a guy named job and the story written about him was written by people who weren't interested in a journalistic account. I think much if not most, if not all of the old Testament is a mixture of the figurative and literal written by people who weren't interested in distinguishing between the two and I am not alone in believing this. I have an unlikely ally in the form of Joseph fielding Smith later on in doctrines of salvation just lower on the same page from the quote I read you before. He has a section where he talks about allegorical and symbolical teachings in the Bible. I didn't know symbolical was a word. Anyway, quote, even the most devout and sincere believers in the Bible realize that it is like most any other book filled with metaphor, simile, allegory and parable which no intelligent person could be compelled to accept in a literal sense. When the Lord said to Noah, every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb, have I given you all things? Does any person believe that this permission included the use of unclean animals and every poisonous herb which carries within its leaves or roots the power of agonizing death? Should we not have the Liberty to interpret this as we do similar things in other writings, in the light of wisdom and with a sprinkling of reason guided by what else may be written in the sacred word bearing upon the subject close quote. I agree with all of that quote 100% although I doubt Joseph fielding Smith would agree with me in saying that job was not a historical figure. The boundaries of what's acceptable to accept as literal and figurative in the old Testament have shifted over time. They've shifted from 1958 to 2019 and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The other thing that has shifted significantly that's very important here is the racial understanding that informs Bruce R McConkie his article about the erotic priesthood. The priesthood named after Aaron is a priesthood that is rooted in lineage. It was also called the Levitical priesthood because the tribe of Levi were those designated to serve as priests to ancient Israel and elder McConkie makes note of that in his article quote, this priesthood in that day was conferred solely upon worthy members of this special lineage chosen to receive it. It came to individuals by descent because of father and because of mother as contrast that with an Oak Hasidic priesthood which was quote without father, without mother, without descent , close quote, close quote. That last quote within a quote came from the book of Hebrews, which is the new Testament source for much of our understanding of the difference between milk , his ADIC and ironic priesthood. Elder McConkie is interpreting that in a very specific way that goes against the interpretation of most scholars in the world who look at Hebrews chapter seven where they talk about Jesus being a high priest after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Aaron, but the differentiation between those two orders according to the writer of the book of Hebrews, is that male Kazic was a great high priest because of his righteousness, whereas ironic priests were priests solely because of how they were born. And the point is priesthood only matters if it's based on principles of righteousness. And we see that in the 120 first section of the doctrine and covenants. We see that all through modern revelation and the only value in priesthood comes from righteousness and not from lineage. And indeed, most people outside the church interpret Hebrews chapter seven to say that there is no need for a priesthood because the lineage priesthood that elder McConkie is talking about is useless and weak and unimportant. And Jesus is the last priest that we need. Jesus is the priest who will never die and Jesus is the priest who can minister to us throughout all eternity. So we don't need any other priests read in isolation. I think that's probably a valid interpretation of Hebrews chapter seven but as Joseph fielding, Smith said, and the quote that I endorsed earlier on, it's important to measure scriptural versus against other scriptural versus , and there are so many scriptures in the new Testament that talk about the offices within the church, bishops and deacons and all these sorts of things that the idea that Hebrews chapter seven is eliminating the need for a priesthood and for a church structure all together , I think is a naive reading of that scripture. But I think elder McConkie, his reading of it is also naive because he insists that the lineage is still somewhat important. And the only reason why we no longer worry about lineage is because as I read from his article about Aaronic priesthood quote, few members of the tribe of Levi gathered with the fold of Israel and the Meridian of time. If you have come back to the fold of their fathers and this dispensation, and there were none among the neophytes to whom our Lord ministered. Consequently, beginning in the day of the primitive church, the lesser priesthood was spread out among the body of the people and was no longer confined exclusively to the chosen lineage. So close quote, I read that as elder McConkie saying, well, the only reason we don't have priesthood through lineage anymore is we just don't have enough of that lineage that have joined. And so out of necessity, we've just had to expand it. I think that's nonsense. I think what's happened is that has expanded the authority and the blessings of the gospel to all peoples of all races and any attempt to tie lineage to priesthood authority is likely to be destructive. I think we've seen that in the history of our own church and we're certainly going to get into the history of the priesthood ban on people of African descent as we get into more of Bruce R McConkie his writings, but right here at the outset, it's important to realize that so many of the things that we have called doctrine are really based on faulty assumptions. The assumption that lineage matters in the modern dispensation to the exercise of priesthood ordinances is nonsense. There isn't a scriptural basis for it, and likewise, this is opening a bit of a can of worms, but can anyone show me the scripture that tells me that the priesthood can only be confined to a single gender because that's been the assumption that's been the tradition. That's the way we practice priesthood ordination now, but I see no scriptural basis for it. I see no doctrinal basis for it. And I think as we understand doctrine, we understand that doctrine is reflective of truth, that doctrine is not truth itself, but doctrine expands and envelops new light and knowledge that is introduced into the world. And to elder McConkie his credit, he's one of the first people to have said that when the priesthood revelation was received in 1978 elder McConkie gave a wonderful talk called all are alike unto God, where he essentially admitted candidly that he had been wrong about his assumptions, about priesthood and about lineage. And I found that extraordinarily refreshing. And it's one of the reasons why I love elder McConkie is that for all of his authoritative bluster here, if I can use that word, he also had enough humility to publicly stand and admit error. We don't see that very often, even in 2019 lastly, I want to get to the subject of Aaron nights . Actually, I don't want to get to the subject, but Bruce R McConkie leaves me no choice because he has written an article, or at least a paragraph called Aaron nights where he says, descendants of Aaron , specially honored as the priest of Israel were called era nights . First Chronicles chapter 12 verse 27 and chapter 27 verse 17 now, how does this in any way qualify as official Mormon doctrine? When was the last time you heard the word Aaron EIT used in a church setting or indeed in any setting? This is one of my problems with Mormon doctrine as a book, is that it creates this sort of comprehensive illusion that all of these things have been referenced in any significant way by people with priesthood authority to be able to determine official doctrine. There hasn't been a single talk or a single pronouncement and certainly not a single modern revelation about the subject of era nights . So why does elder McConkie feel compelled to put that in an official compendium or a clause high official compendium of what Mormon doctrine is supposed to be? I think the answer to that is that he points out, once again that descent quote, dissent in genealogical proof thereof were of vital importance unquote proof of the lineage of Aaron . It's reinforcing his whole lineal understanding of the priesthood and so he decides to put that in there, but the idea that this is reflective of official doctrine is in my mind, largely nonsense and there are so many sort of filler little tiny paragraphs within this book that qualify along that same standard that I feel to be a completist, I have to be able to address them, but there is nothing about that. There's nothing about Aaron nights that qualifies as official teachings of the church. Absolutely nothing. Now you don't have to agree with me. In fact, I hope you don't agree with me and that you'll go to canonize [inaudible] dot com and show your disagreement by creating a camp of your own. If you go to canonize or.com on the front page, there's a box on the front page that says what's new at canonized and down at the bottom of that box there, there are links to all three of the articles discussed in this podcast. Aaron Aaronic priesthood and Aaron nights . Again, this is the AA Ron podcast, and so if you go there, you can read what Bruce R McConkie said initially and there is an article that says Aaron 1958 and then there's an article that says Aaron 2019 that I've written. That's my response to the 1958 article. Now if you agree with elder McConkie, you are more than welcome to join his camp at canonize or you just go in and you click on which camp you want to join and you can join the Bruce R McConkie camp and say in 1958 elder McConkie got it right. This is exactly what Mormon doctrine is, or you can go to my camp and say in 2019 Jim Bennett who has absolutely no official authority to do this, has adequately expressed my understanding of what Mormon doctrine is and you can join my camp or you have another alternative where you can say, I don't think you didn't . One of those guys knew what they were talking about. I want to create a camp of my own. And so you go in and you create a camp and you create a camp statement and everybody who reads all of these statements can choose which one they want to believe and where , which one they want to support. And if they don't support any of them, they can create camps of their own. And what happens is that the consensus camp, the people who join the camp that best reflects what Mormon doctrine truly is, will rise to the top as people go through this. That's the purpose of canonized.com that's the purpose of this podcast. The Mormon cannon project is designed to try to find the consensus that alluded Bruce R McConkie back in 1958 and that will allow us to understand the perception of what the church truly teaches and what it is that is truly doctrine and truly truth at the root of all doctrines. And that's the goal of this podcast. That's the goal of canonized [inaudible] dot com and I would hope you be able to participate if you don't have a canonized your account just go in, it's very easy to sign up. We also would appreciate any kind of feedback you can give us because this website is still somewhat in beta mode. We're still trying very hard to figure out how to make it most accessible and user friendly to everybody, but it reflects, I think, the best understanding of consensus building on the web. And just to go off on a brief tangent here, a lot of people have said, Oh, your website's a lot like Chiarello if you've ever been to key aloe . It's a quote unquote discussion site on the web. And so I went to key aloe and I started a discussion on the Shakespeare authorship question, which is another one of my pet bugaboos and discovered that that doesn't do anything to measure consensus. All it does is provide a forum for people to argue, and that's exactly what it does and canonize or provides an opportunity for people to be able to build consensus around their points of view. So I would hope you would help me and join me in this quest to find the consensus as to what Mormon doctrine and what the Mormon cannon truly is. And until next week, this is Jim Bennett. I will see you next time on the Mormon Canon podcast.