Demolition
2025 was demolition. We mapped the structural fractures within Roman Catholicism, Zionist Christianity, and Rapture Doctrine, identifying where the architecture of man replaced the pattern of the Kingdom.
2026 shifts to forensic audit. First targets: Mormonism and Messianic Judaism. The question is simple: do these systems operate by Covenant or Extraction? Creation or Consumption?
If your identity is anchored in these movements, the findings may be uncomfortable. But Kingdom Code doesn’t debate belief. We investigate structure. The structure tells the truth.
Mormonism
Founded 1830 by Joseph Smith, who was previously convicted for “glass-looking” (a treasure-hunting fraud) before receiving his visions
The “First Vision” story has at least four contradictory versions written by Smith himself, dates, details, and even who appeared to him changed over time
The Book of Abraham, sold as scripture translated from Egyptian papyri, has been examined by modern Egyptologists. The papyri are standard funeral texts. Smith’s “translation” matches nothing in the actual documents
Temple rituals introduced in Nauvoo share striking similarities with Freemasonic ceremonies, smith became a Mason just weeks before introducing the temple endowment
Smith secretly practiced polygamy while publicly denying it, marrying girls as young as 14, including women already married to other men
The church today controls an estimated $100+ billion in assets
The question: Is this covenant structure or extraction apparatus wearing religious clothing?
Messianic Judaism
Modern movement emerged 1960s-70s, not from ancient Jewish-Christian continuity but from Protestant evangelical missionary efforts targeting Jews
The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled Messianic Judaism is Christianity, not Judaism, for purposes of the Law of Return
Roughly half of attendees at Messianic congregations are Gentiles, not ethnic Jews
Organizations like Jews for Jesus use Jewish cultural forms as conversion tactics, what Jewish groups call deceptive “bait and switch” evangelism
Creates identity confusion: participants often believe they’re practicing something ancient when the movement is younger than rock and roll
Using a calendar influenced by Babylon, yet most followers are either unaware or choose to ignore it.
The question: Is this restoration of first-century faith or extraction of Jewish identity for Gentile religious consumption?
These are entry points, not conclusions.
The full investigations will trace the money, the power structures, the theological claims against primary sources, and the fruit these systems produce in their adherents.
Covenant systems produce life, and distribute ownership.
Extraction systems concentrate power, and harvest identity.
The forensic audit will determine which category these movements occupy.
Rocka, this piece shows both your strength and your writing's (and reasoning's) recurring weakness. Your strength is that you are willing to test religious claims against history and evidence rather than sentiment. Your weakness is that you continue to force widely different theological realities into a single analytic grid — “covenant vs extraction” — and then treat that grid as if it were self-validating. It is not. A framework is not a verdict; it is a tool. When the tool predetermines the verdict, investigation has already ended.
Let me answer you with careful distinctions and clean lines.
On Mormonism first. Faithful Christianity has already rendered a clear theological judgment here, and it does not require your extraction model to reach it. Mormonism is not part of apostolic Christianity because its core doctrinal claims contradict the apostolic deposit at decisive points: the nature of God, the nature of Christ, the meaning of revelation, and the closure of public revelation with the apostolic age. That conclusion stands even if Joseph Smith had been morally impeccable and financially disinterested. False doctrine does not become true because the founder was poor, and true doctrine does not become false because the founder was compromised. Moral and financial irregularities may support a credibility assessment, but they are not the primary theological test. Truth is judged first by conformity to apostolic revelation, not by institutional balance sheets.
Your argument, however, leans heavily on founder scandal, financial scale, and structural control signals. That is understandable — but it is not logically sufficient. By your metric, any large, wealthy, centrally organized religious body trends automatically toward “extraction.” That would indict not only Mormonism but most of historic Christianity at various points, including periods of intense sanctity and missionary fruitfulness. Size and assets prove capacity, not motive. Motive must be demonstrated, not inferred from magnitude. Any analytic model that cannot distinguish between a corrupt church and a holy one except by asset size and structural centralization is not yet fine-grained enough for theological judgment.”
Now to Messianic Judaism. Here your analysis overreaches in a different direction. You describe it as identity extraction because it is modern, mixed in composition, and evangelistic toward Jews using Jewish forms. But newness does not equal illegitimacy. Every missionary movement in Christian history has used cultural translation. The early Church translated the gospel into Greek philosophical vocabulary. Roman liturgy absorbed legal and civic forms. Missionaries in Asia adopted local language and metaphor. Inculturation is not automatically deception; it is often necessary for communication. It becomes deception only if it hides core claims. Some Messianic groups may cross that line; many do not. You will need finer instruments than movement age and demographic ratios to prove fraud.
More importantly, your governing binary — covenant versus extraction — is too blunt to carry the theological load you are putting on it. Covenant, in faithful Christian teaching, is defined by God’s initiative and promise, not by organizational structure alone. An institution can be hierarchically ordered and covenantal. A loosely networked movement can be extractive. Structure type does not settle covenant status. Revelation does.
There is also a methodological inconsistency in your project that needs daylight. When you analyze traditions you oppose, you foreground founder faults, money totals, ritual borrowings, and institutional leverage. When you analyze traditions you favor, you foreground symbolism, pattern continuity, and conceptual alignment. That asymmetry does not prove you wrong, but it does mean your audit is not yet neutral. A forensic method must apply identical evidentiary weights across cases or it becomes advocacy under laboratory lighting.
Faithful Christianity uses a different primary filter, one that is both simpler and harder: apostolic continuity of doctrine, sacrament, and authority. The central question is not first “who holds assets?” or “who borrowed ritual forms?” but “what is taught about God, Christ, salvation, revelation, and grace — and is that teaching continuous with the apostolic rule of faith?” On that test, Mormonism clearly fails. Many Messianic Jewish believers — insofar as they confess orthodox Christology and the apostolic gospel — do not fail, even if their movement contains confusions, hybrid practices, or unstable identity language.
Finally, a caution about tone and trajectory. You describe your coming work as demolition followed by forensic audit. Demolition is sometimes necessary (I agree that error should be named, which is why I keep pressing these distinctions), but demolition is not yet discernment. Surgeons cut in order to heal; arsonists burn in order to clear. The difference lies in whether one has a living anatomy in view. Faithful Christian teaching insists that correction be ordered toward truth and unity, not merely exposure and separation.
If you want a truly searching audit, here is the controlling question that must sit above all your structural metrics: does this movement transmit the apostolic gospel in its doctrinal substance and sacramental life, under accountable authority, ordered toward holiness and salvation? That question will acquit some institutions your framework suspects and condemn some it might otherwise excuse.
Without that higher criterion, “extraction” becomes a label, not a proof; and labels are the cheapest tools in any demolition kit.