since this is a rehash of my older work and I now am a lot more knowledgeable about a variety of things that back then have pretty much been mysteries to me (and especially since I really don't remember exactly how I segmented things back then) this really won't be (and when, just vaguely) a proper representation thereof. The goal here is to achieve some level of transparency regarding the knowledge I've gathered so far; And this in line of what I've done back then.

The time at which I've done this I was just about to get baptized Mormon. The largest part of it has even been conceived prior to that. Hence Enlightenment and any associated topic was totally beyond me. Leaving those parts out however appears to me as a wasted opportunity.

(On) A Quest For Truth


I don't have to get into this too much I think. The achievement was pretty much to think of the Big Bang Theory and use those insights to reflect upon arguments 'for' God. Some might call this "Creationism". But what sets my thought apart from Creationism is that I believe that Creationism is subject to the "Paradigm of the Forbidden Truths". 'Forbidden Truths' are 'truths' that generally simplify the whole argument as opposed to the "Legal Truths", which are to complicate things and eventually even to obscure reality. One such case is found within exposing the Roman Catholic Church for what it is. Bad. See Matthew 23:9. "Period" - nuff said. Such would be a Forbidden Truth, whereas calculating the number 666 from the Pontiffs Title "VICARIVS FILII DEI" were not since all of it is way too inaccessible, including the obscurity of whether or not this is actually one of his official/legal titles. Respectively might one want to bring up the prophecies found within the Book of David as 'clear', yet the 'clarity' could as well elude the non-believer as there are alternate interpretations of the same account.

The primary argument regarding the idea of 'THE DEFINING FORCE' was derived from thinking about Virtual Particles. I mayhap so should describe their appearance and disappearance as "Ghostly" - yet so in thought of the apparent existence of a "Codex", 'Concrete Laws' (well, "Duh" in-deed). This is specifically interesting here, versus the alternate perspective onto a Universe wherein each and every particle is already accounted for.
While some might be itching to throw in "The God of the Gaps" - which is the "God did it!" excuse to fill "the Gaps" of a better understanding - I would argue that we here have 'the Quint-essential' Gap; The one I however meant to look at. And in this regard a pivotal understanding regarding an accurate representation of the "Theory of Intelligent Design".

1.1-a "CREATIONISM" for noobies

In terms of Creationism there however isn't so much I have to share. Creationism is after all the attempt to proof that the account of Creation as found in the Bible is 100% accurate. This is however strictly impossible if all the evidence we might have got obscured during an incident such as the one of the Tale about the Tower of Babel (Tower of Babel incident/event, 'The Great Confusion').

1.1-b "INTELIGENT DESIGN" for noobies

Apart of the aforementioned 'gap', there is another; Namely the one of "speaking particles". Well, "following the "God of the Gaps" principle" we would start with a question: "How?" and put in ... God ... ? Well, so - let us take a look at it: "How does DNA communicate with the rest of "itself"?".

"[//"Gravity"//!!!]" might someone yell - saying, were we to ask what makes Objects fall, we would have an easy answer. Energy makes things move and so that - and here's the catch: I'm - here - not concerned of finding the particular point where 'God' is the definitive answer. Things work the way they do for reasons, reasons that I can trace back to 'the Defining Force' - whereby I must imply some Level of intelligence. Given then is that there is a 'Defining Force' which then holds some power upon how things behave. The question then for 'how' they behave and which things correlate to that, that is ... "Science", ... or 'Physics' ... both - and Chemistry, Biology, etc..

It is then, furthermore, that hybrid theories become accessible. So are we to recognize for an instant, that at some point "God" makes DNA do its thing with ... whatever ... while DNA to our Understanding is synonymous to an Organism, a singular whole of multiple components. And at that point we can draw the Link to the "Spirit-ual". Just how, ... is beyond me as I in essence am only capable of providing sophistry.

1.1-c "THE GNOSTIC DEFINITION"" for a start

Gnosticism idealizes 'Salvation by "Gnosis" (Insight, Recognition/Cognition)' - and is in that not too far apart from the "Standards of Science". It is however different to Science in that one inherant flaw to Science is simply removed: The question for God.
Since it is well beyond the inherent concept of a believer to truly question this Existence, the Gnostic would allow "Him"-self to incorporate this insight into his empirical world-view. There-upon it is inevitable to profoundly regard the own inability to 'be sure' about "what next" (other than just Science again); And as of that all conjecture in a sense "profanes" the idea as it becomes part of a school of thought that in and of itself is regarded as restricted by social and geological boundaries. So it is, in a way, self-defeating (Snake eating its own Tail as Symbol of Gnosticism) but nonetheless inevitable.

The final 'truth' in this apparent cycle of Doom is however more-so its origin as well. Gnosticism is 'profane' unless 'graced' into 'sanctity', which - as logic has it - can only be done by God HIMSELF. God, or rather: The revelation of God, as beginning and end. The belief in God and the hope for His response as beginning, and the answer as as its "end". So, until the latter is achieved the individual is caught up in this endless non-sequitur.

Now, ... built upon this however the "enlightened" gnostic may find, that a revelation from God may go as far as to literally make Gnosticism work by 'effectively gracing it' to be; So the "snake" might be "getting its head out of its own arse".

1.1-d "THE NEO-GNOSTIC "PROFANITY"" for a follow up

Respectively can we regard any attempt to 'show' the 'sanctity' of a school of thought by some elaboration as "Gnostic Profanity" - yet depending on what terms, ideas and ideologies are attached to it we can sort different things into good and bad; As, at some point it is just inevitable to have "a thing", ... so for to not having 'nothing'.

'I' so happen to be a Christian, more specifically a Mormon ... or at least "Para Mormon". Or Pseudo? Meta? Neo? ... Well, I'm baptized Mormon and I believe that the Church is true, for as long as the presence of the Priesthood (authority to baptize) is the only real requirement. Beyond that ... those are issues for another time. I happen to have the Testimony however that the Church is true, but its Scriptures are somewhat flawed. And "the Church is True" is really a statement that one might flip over, left and right (What true, how true, etc ...) - but it matters to me in the sense that I conceived it in. So it should to you - so, as how you conceive it. And for how it matters I call it 'true' - as so the words I had on mind as I conceived it - which is ... 'close enough'.

While a lot of "all that" is certainly beyond the point/topic here, one thing is not: John 1:1 "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God". And what is a word? A "defining ..."! Force? Factor ... rather. A tool. A definition. The produce. And God being Eternal Life conceived Himself through the first insight, which reflected the state of Reality as it could be. 'Eternal Life' as 'the First Insight' is, in the sense, a trans-literation of the (word or rather) 'meaning' of (the Word) 'God'. And HE is ... Colossians 1:15 ... 'the Invisible God' (or "He who can have no accurate appearance (Because Eternity (Immensity, Infinity) cannot exist in the manifest ("limited") space)).
~Wrong! Infinity 'can' - as, Gods Omnipresence provides that Eternity matter of fact 'is' present within the finite - where so 'the Immense' were to remain as that which we can comprehend as that which cannot take finite shape. ... ish


Originally this was all this was about and at that not at all fleshed out. Basically just a bit of rambling while generally just thinking of somehow shoving the idea of 'Manitu' in there to so get something of a proper bridge over to Part 3 - "Yahwinism". So, the 'main part' thats then about Israel, Judaism, Islam and Christendom; And also here the part I generally want to get to as a lot of what I had worked out until then was gonna be in there. There-after I continued with Buddhism, Hinduism and also looked at "Alienism". #Annunaki. Although that term wasn't really all that familiar to me.

A lot of all these can now however be solved right here. Or is already in certain terms bypassed within the previous.

The gist tho, for this particular part, as in the spirit of what I had back then, is in all simplicity the general focus on a belief in "some higher force" - where there I would see the 'forbidden truth' in regards to its implied (but due to the "prohibition" never acknowledged or pronounced) intellect. Some 'sense' - 'perception' and 'action' - to 'guide' us within what is fate or to realize our sacrifices, personal deeds, ... whatever. So that yea, in the end, we're back at "God".

Some ... Scientist/Anthropologist - to now get to the contemporary headline (it wasn't Proto-Religion at all) - would, I think, approach the idea of Proto-Religion by means of observation. We so get to "ancient beliefs" where we would find that a lot of ancient cultures had certain things in common; Like some 'Sun Deity'. And that in general supports the Atheistic world-view in that, compared to what I have to say about Proto-Religion, these religions emerged from what we could see as 'guessing'. Trying to interpret the world in favor of some deity.
Proto-Religion at all is to mean as much as "Original (Ancestorial/Hierarchical) Religion". We can't speak of 'Sun-Cults' as being that, but more so the present idea of some existing deity. If that is all, some 'barren' knowledge of a God, we would have a hard time specifying what this Proto-Religion might have been - "if there even is one". But that also isn't really my intended approach on determining what it could be.

Therefore, "Meta-Religion", "Para-Religion" or "Post-Religion" would be more appropriate terms - and at all was that the general gist of my original work. As when so thinking of Buddhism, focusing on the 'symptoms' of that desire to connect to that higher something and to somehow have some certain knowledge of it.


According to the Bible, there was no 'true' Proto-Religion. Adam and Eve basically just lived until they did the thing and then they just lived too. Just slightly less comfortable. But is it here that we have some account of what we'd be looking for wondering about the true Proto-Religion, where scholastically we'd be thinking of something such as Gnosticism but without this dilemma of not having a proper revelation. So we 'should', somehow, draw the conclusion that the absence of this Proto-Religion - or in that sense 'the only true religion' - is indication enough for the absence of God. Which in modern day we can regard as 'appropriate', agnostic of the existence or in-existence of God. Well, because: If God wanted (as technically equal to "if there were a God") us to know Him, there shouldn't be any contention about it. No need to guess or wonder/wander - just ... simple clarity.

The Bible is as close as it gets. And based on the Bible we have ... "Proto Judaism", Judaism, Christendom and Islam - and some might want to include Anti-Christendom into it too. And why not? After all it is a spiritual orientation based on interpreting the world in regards to a doctrine or interpretation or teaching or whatever (explanation of reality) - plus some ideological concepts, whatever.

Yet so in the Bible we learn that for the most part there was no religion ... early on. Just some way of trying to connect to God. Then came the flood, then came Babel and then we have Abraham. And Abraham didn't really have a religion either. Then came Isaac and then Jacob - and then Jacob and his family moved to Egypt not really having a religion either. Just some vague connection to and concept of (a) God. Then they multiplied and became 'the Tribe of Israel' - and then God chose some man we now know as Moses to lead them out of Egypt and that is when 'they' received a Religion. A religion specifically designed for 'them', as 'the People of Israel'. It is then by the Christian mission that this tale is really opened up to the rest of us - and that in terms of the Bible is truly 'when' this Biblical God takes the stance of being that Universal God ... who never really bothered with giving us a true Proto-Religion.
Which would be 'one' explanation of why we don't have any.


Established in the previous part is, roughly, the 'Atheistic Justification'. So: The absence of "a/the Proto-Religion" implies 'Atheism' as the 'core' belief that reality itself does imply. As so the existence of a God among us, as in a fantasy world like that of Dungeons & Dragons (where every Deity is linked to some 'actual' functionality and have temples one may visit to partake of that), does imply Theism. Now, whether all the religious centers we have do the same thing as within D&D is debatable. For a short look we can just skim over all the different Christian centers and argue that 'if' so, the truth is yet more vague than (at least some of) those "centers" would imply themselves. Seventh Day Adventism is for instance one good example since their belief centers around 'the 7th Day (Sabbath, Saturday)' with the implied teaching that valuing the right day as the Sabbath Day is the seal on "our foreheads" which the Angel of the Revelation puts on peoples foreheads. Mormons on the other hand are excluded from this, as their claim is simply that if you ask God sincerely enough you'll get the answer from HIM and with that we're in the realms of Gnosticism ... or in other words "Proto" Religion, as we'll get to in a second.
Or more.

So is 'A-Theism' simply the logical consequence to the absence of THE definitive Answer - and so philosophically pondering upon the Proto Religion will take us into the area of Gnosticism. The basic idea is the same. The Gnostic Definition is pretty much built upon the Atheistic Justification. But without that, Gnosticism would be PROTO RELIGION - clear. I think this has been sufficiently covered.

And so it is the actual point here. So, the next best thing to Proto-Religion is Gnosticism. And in that does Gnosticism become "Proto Religion" once the existence of God is confirmed and a thing akin to religion "born from it" - a.k.a. Possible.

2.3-a THE GNOSTIC RULE in Progress

Every once in a while I have a hard time remembering shit. It was just an hour or two ago that I was sitting at Lunch, thinking about all this and it occured to me that there is such a thing as this. It pretty much came out through the context of how I was formulating everything - but now it somehow eludes me.

Yet there isn't much of "Surface Area" as to what it might be. Like so, we can't really expand the idea, the Gnostic Definition, to anything sophisticated other than true Divine Revelation. Not even "the equivalence" of the same would, might or should do. Its inherently excluded - as for that we have the Gnostic Profanity. And so can we account for this as some Gnostic Rule. But so, with Gnosticism there is that Dilemma. That if I now have some revelation and as of that a safe account of a Gnostic outset - that it is profane until safely encountered by the individual who seeks for it. So is the sanctified profane but to those that know it for sacred. Another thing we can consider 'Gnostic Rule'. And so you should be able to see the pattern. When we have to separate something from the 'core' of Gnosticism as to keep it as sacred as possible.

And this also makes a good continuation to the aforementioned. Atheism - as precluded - "may" exist despite Gods existence. The Bible has it so. So is all of Gods activity which HE does not reveal equally to everyone by principle sacred, but to the general consensus yet nonetheless profane.

As I concluded from the Nag-Hammadi Codices is there a seed of this wisdom that the authors of those books evidently tried to convey. Matter of fact - I would say that my wisdom of that matter has grown on that. The idea is pretty much to say, while naturally we're still in the Profane, that on behalf of God we are able to know things that we can not know by any other means. Or the presence of God (implied: by Jesus the Christ) makes it possible that some would know a few things that only God could reveal. While this is pretty much "exposed" as "stuck in profanity" - so we can speak of the knowledge itself even if it has come from God directly. For, although it might be written that God does never lie, ... we would have nothing but that word for it. So is it "there" the next Level of relating to God to disclose these "sacred" truths to ones self. And how would that work? How does it? How 'can' it work - without trust?

And, we might see, that the Gnostic solution is far superior to the Proto-Religious one. Why? How? You ask? The Proto-Religious one would pretty much spawn a mass religion based on Gods word/work alone and our social constructs would depend on their absolute validity. Although we can think of alternate solutions that might work - like, well, in Dungeons & Dragons maybe, where the Gods are vaguely present; They don't really do anything ... though some DM could conjure up a tale wherein one might actually achieve 'Divine Enlightenment' of some sorts. But all that aside is the Gnostic solution the simple opposite to the Proto-Religious one. One does not question the word of God - but one does encounter the worth. A worth that furthermore isn't tied to worldly concepts - such as promises that make the Gods within these fantasy scenarios "worth the while".


What some might know as Judaism isn't truly 'the' Israelite Religion. If I had to "guess", or so make an educated one, I'd say that the books Esra and Nehemiah are as close as we get to the 'per se' birth of Judaism. Those are an account of how "the People of Israel" (or rather so: 'Judah' (and Benjamin)) continued to live after being released from Exile. That Exile had begun as Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem; And that also marks the end of the "Period of the Kings (of Israel)" - which - essentially begun after Salomon but basically already with Saul. Its the Tale of 'what happened' after God gave Israel what they wanted, despite not really liking the idea. At my account: The tale of "what people do for [...]" (Money, Power, Fame, ...).
I've just recently had a bit of time to scheme and write about these things - and the pivotal conclusion that I've got to was that Salomon did more than what is apparent from the story as told. We so get to some King who eventually 'found the Books "of the Covenant"' - which means that at some point they had been lost. Salomon being not Son to an Israelite but a stranger woman may have enjoyed some stranger religious education and with that the truth was eventually abandoned. The story checks out. After Salomon died, Chaos broke loose and it is rather apparent that "the Kings of Jerusalem" (of the house of David) much so just boasted the names of David and Solomon to stay in charge while the remainder had pretty much been cut off from their true tradition. The story at large leaves us to suggest that some households have been more in line with this "ancient God" - but otherwise ... there is a lot of Chaos and it is more likely that the Old Testament is a child of that Chaos than it is a child of the Exodus. There are certain traces of it here and there.

I want to keep things short here - and all that is certainly really important and interesting in its own right; Which his why I treated it in my original work as best as I could. Two things that should really be mentioned, other than the Phantom Time Theory, are the Merneptah Stele and the House of David Inscription. Two 'fragments' that basically shouldn't be omitted from an attempted revival of the old ... "truths". Yet the Old Testament - and that shouldn't be forgotten either - is a 'third' fragment. It is pretty much established knowledge throughout all the Bible related religions that all the findings of ancient writings pretty much confirm the authenticity of what we got today. I don't have any degree in that, so - I'm at a loss here. But I seriously don't doubt it.

Further, I must apologize that I don't have my Bible with me here - and also, that I don't have my original "Study Bible" anymore. I had a Bible at the point I was doing this originally; And thats the one I've read from Beginning to End (except for a few parts that I've read elsewhere) and where I respectively had all my notes in. I took it with me to L.A. - which is where I lost most of my stuff and upon the things returned to me, well, that Bible wasn't present. I bought a new one, but ... it just isn't the same and I didn't really get back at having the same level of curiosity (energy) and passion of going through that one as to eventually have all the references available.

What matters though - is in essence ... mostly surmised within Jeremiah 31:31+. What we have in the Old Testament is an account of how things came to be, mostly focusing on the Religion of Israel, and along with that 'the Old Covenant'. Which, as the Old Testament puts it, "they have broken" - and so a 'new' one got announced. So, the most of that is pretty much outdated and so we can basically skip over into Christianity and Islam.


Reading the first few parts of the Quran (starting with 1) we get the idea that the perspective of Muhammad is that of someone standing outside while Christians and Jews were pretty much arguing with each other. As that, Muhammad spawned Islam, which in the light of Gnosis ... is a Meta solution to the disparity between Christians and Jews. In a way some kind of "Proto Gnosticism". Opening a pretty interesting question, well, the answer to which we'd have to wait for for some centuries yet to come ... taking us right into Mormonism.


In this context I so rather happen to think of the first Book of the Book of Mormon since here we have some account of what happened to the Christian Tradition. As we may independently conclude from the Bible: The Roman Catholic Church isn't 'good' (and as 'bad' 'per se' as one could possibly "hope" to find) but at that same point the authority through which the volume of the New Testament got defined. The reason why certain things that clearly speak against them are still present in the books is simply answered by "they couldn't get rid of it" (anymore). Like so they couldn't just go and 'fake' the Old Testament either. If some disparity between this and that version had been found, things would have stacked up against the Roman Catholic Church quite easily. Lets call it "the Archaeological and Anthropological Truth".

So, the New Testament isn't a bunch of writings that the RCC 'released', ... but a list of books that it had considered 'inspired'. The story is pretty much that they put the writings on an altar and the right ones bounced up and down. They obviously had to include certain ones as they were some sort of popular.

Backing up the claims of the Book of Mormon we so have the New Testament itself - all that makes an interpretation of Daniel more or less simple - and in Hosea is it I guess we have the prophecy that "The Day of the Lord will be Darkness" - like, 'someone trying to rest his hand on a wall just to find a snake to crawl forth from the shadow to bite him' or something like that.

This is what I consider 'round' - well, in biblical terms at least. It sure is a bit of a hack - like all Christian beliefs have at their foundation. Some should mean it well, others are more deceptive about ... which verses to pick and how to apply them. I think. We can be really selective - if we wanted - from regarding all of it as rock solid truth to calling almost all of it a lie. Thats the dilemma and yet so the best reason to believe why the Book of Mormon makes sense.

That so in terms of 'leading up to' the Testimony rather than concluding back from it. And I think there's the better advise in. The more you know leading up to it, the more accurate your Testimony can be - as to my experience God would draw it together from things that you already have access to. So, you need to be able to understand it - and without the right knowledge, well, you might be anxious to press for it but might end up being more vague if not even somewhat misleading.

Like, is it the 'true' Church? Considering all available knowledge we can debate that statement. Priesthood clearly says yes - but there are a lot of ways that allow us to claim the opposite. Its flawed - and how you would yourself deal with this flaw does maybe require God to give you this yes/no answer in your favor. But thats just a guess. Respectively should that testimony however allow for the truth to come in. Else, ... if its a strict and all in all no - I guess I'm wrong about mine. And because I can't confidently support that, I'm confident in the other thing.

So, in my original work I just skimmed past the Mormon bit. After all - I was pretty much done with all of it before I really got into Mormonism and what little I had done after I got into it - well, for once I would have had to restructure some parts and it was basically 'printed' already. I had no digital copy because the computers disk drive was locked - and thats how that work met its end. Somehow. I did some things as though continuing it, but without a copy of the main work I had to do it all anew ... and well, I didn't feel like it. Don't believe me? Don't trust me? Well, take it for what it is. Sometimes things just don't work out all that well - "some bits you loose, some bits you keep" - and whats the point anyway?


Irony, ... this time straight out of the "Mouth" of the Bible tho. Starting with Isaiah 41 we read about a Prophet. Well, to get this clear - I would generally (and usually do so) imply Chapter 40 also. And, maybe you noted that I am rather scarce on Bible Quotes. The reason to that is somehow found in an earlier statement. As usual 'Context is King' - and unless some verse or segment is clear enough on its own for Context to not matter (oh SDAs ...) much, I much prefer the story that is told rather than fiddling some sense together by quoting singular verses alongside some self-fabricated context. But depending on how you're doing that day, you may or may not get the reason why Chapter 40 is to my understanding the actual beginning. It starts with "God" pointing out some ... issues between "Him" and 'the People'. A real solution is not provided as it goes over into Chapter 41 where then a man, namely Jacob a.k.a. Israel, is practically protagonist.

We can call the whole thing 'the Israel Prophecy' - a man we may simultaneously regard as 'Elijah'. Some Christians may not like this since to them John the Baptism would have been that man, but ... we can also counter that assumption by saying that a) Christs statement on the matter is somewhat Cryptic plus b) that Elijah now being 'there' at that time could also be a hint at one of his disciples being that Elijah - thus so still arguing that Elijah will in deed yet have to come. Mormons have their own take on that, which - I'm not really sure about. It falls into this weird middle-ground of Josephs Ministry where things are rather ... iffy than straight - a thing we have to acknowledge as to properly deal with the whole thing; As so with 'the Strange Act'.

So is this the point where anyone might say: "OK, let me take that and make my own shtick and let me myself be that Israel" - and that man might come and argue that all of the bible is wrong, ... except it conveniently fits his ideas. More or less. Well, being cynical about it at least. Thats one of the things that is basically implied when extracting a new "Elijah expectation" from those words.

To be totally straight with you - I do believe that I am that man. But, I make an effort of not acting in behalf of that. After all I don't have a moment where God or some Angel spoke to me "You're Israel and now you go and do [X] and [Y]". My reasons for believing that I'm that man are mostly conjecture and the rest is ... "gut feeling". And so I won't spend a lot of time on me here. I hope. But well. My reason to believe came after I had already found several things and as of that had a certain feeling of some higher purpose to my doing. I mean, Eden alone would already mean something. And at some point I felt like it would be ... kindof silly if I only found it to my own salvations account. I felt like I was grown to have a lot of knowledge as to be capable of delivering the good news with some amount of ... "extensive clarity" ... that there had to be more to it. And after all - what I found individually, I have the right to share individually. So - it all eventually turns into something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whatever I made of the possibility of being betrayed by [...] didn't matter much to me because, ... I couldn't believe that they'd have much success with it. Which however they eventually had - after being already way too invested into the whole thing to just let it go - which then ... I guess we could say tossed me into some kind of identity crisis. For some time I made peace with things by just saying "OK, ... I could be someone to just "judge" any false prophets that would ..." ... . Well, vaguely so - you get the point.

By the amount of things that I found I would think it impossible for 'the true prophet' to come to a different 'true ending' than I did. And all of this right here is to basically rehash on those insights. As of that I might also find peace at ... my issue with apparently talking to def ears - which is - one of the pillars of my ... mental peril. Maybe I was just putting too much into things - interpreting, guessing, ... that sort of stuff - and so my "ultimate exit" is to simply, well, let it be. Let me tell my story and ... at this point ... share some of my 'wisdom' with you.


Mmm, well - yea. In a sense the gist of what took me here was a matter of 'bragging'. I mean - I did so many things of which I have nothing left anymore; And I couldn't be bothered (well, I did - but it didn't end well) to redo any of it. So for the most time I just moved on and I guess there's some disparity between how you'd perceive me and how I do. Well, depending on when and what you read. I think. Yea ... in a way ...: "I understood the rules, I knew what I'm supposed to do - but I didn't. I couldn't. I was compelled to stay. Compelled to "disobey"". Well, the earliest of those "Compellations" anyhow.

A lot of the things however would arguably just be 'useless tat' if the important things wouldn't be right. So, as I have a Testimony that testifies for the Mormon Church, ... I happen to be considerably Mormon. Any sort of ignorance passed upon it is there just that. Argue what you will - the Strange Act solves it all - and thats that. Easy, Simple and ... Straightforward.
Then, in the Book of Mormon we read of 'Sealed Scriptures' that will come forward in their clarity in due time. I got a good and reasonable clue as to what they are - and as of that, some might make an effort of decrypting them already. I say: If you don't have the right experiences, you'll never make it! With a lot of luck and guesswork you might be able to get some parts straight - but without 'the core thing' it doesn't really matter much! Believe what you will!

Of course I'm talking of 'Unification', or as some of the Nag Hammadi writings put it: "Marriage", or in a less cryptic but also less precise way: 'Enlightenment'. And yea, my "take" on it goes beyond just the Nag Hammadi writings. It was a strange "accident" - and ever since I figured it out I had that weird feeling that it was "too abstract" for most people to ... even want to pay any attention to it. Then there would be all that conjecture that would amount to Ad-Hominem attacks against myself - so, poking "Fun" at how Unenlightened I was - or how little that "Unification" seemed to help me; But who actually bothered to really pay attention to me anyway?

Anyway - I was pretty much 'convinced' of my 'difficult fate' straight from the start; So all the 'suffering' I went through since then was more or less just ... facade. When I would speak of my mental disorder as Post Traumatic Stress I would generally come to mention things that happened prior. Prior to my Baptism? Well - the two come so close together it doesn't really matter that much. Probably Baptism, but who cares?

And thats already it. The HOPE is that once enough people are 'in' it - the rest will just come oozing out of us conventionally. It is not there for you to have some Apostles to listen to, but to become Apostolic yourself. So, putting this Apostledom 'not' onto that high pedestal by other means than saying that its just the next step of Evolution. These Apostles would simply be individuals that got there a bit sooner than the rest. But thats just my take on it. As for the rest, ... I'd say you can pretty much just stick to the Mormon facade and correct it where necessary. Like, Father and Son are 'not' two separate Entities; As the Original Book of Mormon would underline. #TheStrangeAct!

Of this Unification thing that I found I can only tell you that what I found worked out the way it was "described". There wasn't much of it - but there was the thing that couldn't come without God and since then I went through various cycles ... between 1 and 13. Uh ... the 13 Seals. And because of that I think I have to be keen about it and argue against all sorts of other BS that could come around as "the 9th Seal" - if some would even think to include that into their teachings because it isn't based within the Nag Hammadi Codices.

As for bragging - here's the short story: I sought for the truth of God, became a Nasirite, thereby learned of Mormonism and became a Mormon. Then I tried to compile a new Bible of sorts by trying to compile Apokrypha I deemed inspired and thereby stumbled upon the "Nag Hammadi Riddle" through which I ended up with this "weird books" within which I then discovered the keys to "Unification"/Enlightenment. This doesn't really do me justice in terms of what it took in detail, how well versed I am in different matters - but in some ways that would only distract from the things that truly matter. "Sela" (which as far as I know means as much as "think about it")


Maybe I should though rather start with the Nag Hammadi Codices. It wasn't me who figured it out first. I, matter of fact, read about it in some book; A compilation of Apocrypha by some 'Wilhem Schneemelcher'. There as intro to some Nag Hammadi Text it was noted that someone else pointed out that if you "cross out" the parts where the Desciples speak, the Text makes a lot more sense. And so do I basically think of something of a 'secret craze' - a "race" of some sort, if you so will, on deciphering the Nag Hammadi Codices. And yea ... it makes sense. Part of what I lost in L.A. was my entire collection of "Those Books". Upon re-buying them I got one used one which had a couple of things underlined and text-marked; Which gave me the feeling of it being some 'failed attempt' ... #thrownAway ... but, that might be an error.

However, ... just before I went to L.A. I found something of a "Hidden Access" to some part of the Apokryphon of John - specifically the part where parts of a body are being mentioned in conjunction with weird words. So, starting with some 'guideline' text, I was to figure out which sentences aren't 'real', taking them as a reference to some other part and continuing there until it made no sense - and that way somehow navigating myself through the books. I made it up to the ears - and then I stopped; And basically didn't really get back to continue on it. The only other things I was really working on was a deeper understanding of the 12 Aeons ... and the other thing is the whole Enlightenment thing ... which I really don't worry about; Although ... and that is the actual thing I want to write about here ... I in some ways have to.

It would seem like I'm doing the same mistake as before here. But the easiest reason why I 'objectively' can't properly work on it is 'headspace'. At the time I "figured it out" I was head-deep into all the books. I knew my way around, and to work myseelf back into it isn't really an option for me right now.

But well. For what I am inspired to write about - let me start it simple. Putting it as the Nag Hammadi writings would, there's the "ideology of the Soter". Soter meaning as much as 'Redeemer', but more so in a sense that in accordance to the Gnostic Definition only a Soter can truly bring Enlightenment to you. Christ so was the original Soter who "redeemed" the 12 Apostles that then themselves have become Soters for others. Because then at some point everyone is/can be a Soter, regardless of social positioning and intellectual wealth, that isn't really a thing of Hierarchy. And thats how I can deal with this idea. Otherwise I really 'despise' the very notion of it. For what I mean here - lets "recoin" the term 'Archon' for this specific Purpose. Archon means as much as Ruler.


So are Archons people with power - but that doesn't necessarily mean Money. If you so were to entrust yourself to some Soter, that person itself would be an Archon, in the sense that this person has the power to define your reality as far as you are gullible. And we all are gullible to some extent. If there's a shame in being gullible, the right way is not to entrust yourself to the next best "Soter", obviously, because that were the definition of what it means to be gullible.

The thing with Archons in specific is relative to what was previously called "the Archaeological and Anthropological Truth". Maybe ... "the Anthropomorphic Truth" is better. If we all so started to devalue the Bible and some person went around stealing all the Bibles - until we then wonder where all the Bibles have gone - that "treasure of knowledge" would have been taken from us and thats the point where some Entity with sufficient influence could act as 'Archon' providing us with something else.

A related term that popped up in modern culture is 'Astro Turfing', which means: Comments beneath Videos being pushed up to so produce some appearance. Like if I had a squad to post ... anti ... R'n'B comments - and I just need as much as slightly above the average amount of Pro R'n'B comments - I could create the appearance that nobody likes R'n'B.
We can even see a systemic presence of this when thinking of the "female Ghostbusters" movie. There's a clear disparity between how "they in Hollywood" relate to the "backlash" as the 'mass culture' does. They speak of racism and misogyny while 'we' (oops) just speak about how it sucks! We also generally 'say' that there are lots of strong female leads. Thinking of ... OK, Lara Croft might not be the best example but ... oh, Allen? Ripley ... the protagonist in the Alien movies ... Sara Connor, ... well, there are many videos on the matter and some might think that this list is short, ... OK. But Alien was just a good movie and nobody was like "I want me a male protagonist". Respectively ... Predator was good but not 'that' good! We loved Blade, we "Worship" Samuel L. Jackson and Morgan Freeman, Beverly Hills Cop was a thing, and whats Lethal Weapon without "the Black dude"? OK, they make fun of him - take it as you will - Leo Gets it too! (Haha! Got that?). And even if the intent behind those things was/is racist (thats not how I get it tho) - thats not why people liked the movies. Not me at least! In a way does it speak much of acceptance too - if the black guy can get a few jabs for a change.

So, the 'social truth' on the Internet can be Astro-Turfed - and I would much support the interpretation of that bit in the Matrix where Morpheus tells Neo about the real World as going into that direction. "The world of the late 20th Century" existing only as part of a Simulation. Its the 'good world' we 'dream up' around us while most of our lives happen in a society thats much darker than that. But ... be it as it may.

And so is the thing with Archons.


It should be obvious enough, but the two come together. If we dare to trust the Bible on that account. We can however also consider that as much of a Self-fulfilling prophecy, thinking that the one that "Soters the best" would be regarded Israel in retrospective; Which is relatively similar to "Archonage" in that Archonage "also" deals with the "bending of reality". A slight difference would be in the fact that not all prophecies can be safely understood preceding the actual event.

3.3 MY WAY

As I have this whole Matrix thing going for me I deem myself entitled to take the "the One" role upon me; Although in a lot of ways the way that it plays out would more so put God into those shoes. And yea, as it is, HE is the real ONE as much as it gets.

But well. Ever since this thing started I have the obligation to present myself as attachment to it. And thats what I consider 'Apostolic Nature'. As far as I can tell does 'Apostle' mean as much as "Message" rather than "Messenger". An "Apostolum" or something like that used to be the letter attached to a "package" listing its content. So do I have no real message to deliver as none was really given to me. And thats how I hope my story is being understood. The true value isn't within what I think needs to be told but more within the things that 'made' me. And I find it fascinating how some Archon might bend the entire value of it around in his/her favor. Like arguing that all I do is extracting information from "the Matrix" which then would be things that rather so speak in favor of him/her (imposing as "Neo" and co.). Though, with there being a "pro Bad guy" version would say as much as that I'm a Henchman. And if the Henchman can't Hench - what is it? Some things made me believe that the story told is that I have some Alien Super-Computer that allows me to extract those things from the Matrix, yet nobody could pinpoint its location. Implanted in my head? Invisible to X-Ray and MRI? "How Convenient".

And so the weird thing is that my struggle "begins" right there - at even telling you just how things come about. Thinking about ... "who's arguing"? Is it a Theist or an Atheist? It would make a difference. If I say its God and the reaction is like "Pffrt" - I would expect an Atheist react that way - and respectively would there be ways to react to that. In the end I can do what I can do, and if the randomizer fails me there's obviously something wrong with the randomizer. So, take it to the next Level. But if the reaction to that is Theistic, implying some weird nonsense as he/she would just continue to say that he/she be 'The One' "and therefore" ... uh, I don't even need to attempt to try because its clear from the outset ... I don't even ... . But towards a Theist the reaction is entirely different because we're now talking Theology. So, starting with the Testimony ... why or why not? Then its his/her word versus mine - and how are we gonna settle the score then?

Again I think I have an argument - but "voices" tell me that I shouldn't underestimate his/her ability to "Soter" people into ... oblivion. Like my favorite so far: That he/she is the one because he/she is there and I am not. Simple. He/she does his/her thing and if I were the one I should be to interrupt his ... thingy-ma-jick. But it would after all be You getting "Sotered around" by him/her that would be the thing that blocks me out of being there - while people would regard each and every possibility but the one I'm quite sure about being the truth. I however also am almost certain that none of you actually want to hear any of this - while, in due time none of this should matter anymore because the struggles have been resolved somehow.


Following the Gnostic Definition and some idea of the Gnostic Rule, all a true Soter can do is provide as much as a way to the relevant insight. In the more evolved terms: The 'why'. The 'why' you are ... wherever you are - after you've been convinced of a way. The why - without which you are powerless. The thing I would say you don't have coming at me - because if you had it, you'd be doing so differently. Like, starting with coming at me at all.

So, obviously enough: Your reason for believing in something. "Because he/she is "there"" wouldn't make for much. 'Where' is 'there'? Where all the powerful people sit? Well, certainly something to make it seem reasonable. But clearly - 'the Testimony' is a safe enough answer, which I'm sure "the Soter" has another argument to. But well. I would after all still say that the real Soter is naught but one - the Lord Himself. As the Bible has it. Matthew 23:the beginning. "Until You find it". It might seem strange since a lot of our cultural society would work on concepts opposed to those instructions - as it ever has ... like in far away cultures ... life wouldn't work without some ... "Sensei" for instance ... in a sense - but each proper teacher has to at some point acknowledge personal imperfection. We can seek council from them - but by doing so we need to understand that we might provoke a statement from given imperfection. Otherwise the teacher just passes on what he has learned himself. Thats coming from him. If we have questions left - chances are he doesn't really know them! And who is there that could safely tell you about God? What would be the worth of God if you couldn't go to HIM directly? And what is the worth of a Soter that tries to "cockblock" you out of actually relying on an independent, personal relationship to God?

"Insanctumah Fuck You!"


I would have much hoped to be more Bible-Versed here and instead I really digressed "Hard" from that. I didn't mean to really drag this into contemporary concerns - but I really don't have it in me right now to dabble on around rather pointless issues just for the sake of oomphing out some Bible Tech. But so, to give you some of the juicy fruits: Compare the two (yes, two) Ancestral Trees of Christ to each other and spot the difference. For advanced studies, compare the end-time prophecies to each other and see the 'two' different endings. I'm almost certain that there's someone willing to put those onto an alter and see which ones are bouncing - but you should also see that we really don't have a real need for that!

What is Enlightenment about? We are to learn to live. To familiarize us with the concept of Eternal Life - and to learn to basically let go of the perceived inevitability of Death with which all of what we are potentially goes into Oblivion.

I have certain ideas of where we might be heading - some of which might seem in bad taste. I at some point concluded for myself that beyond the basics of the Gospel ... that is where my true calling is at. So, in terms of Apostledom. Its what my life - became to be about. And those things are far from the Universal truths discussed herein so far. They are utterly specific and individual. Things that have me believe in the worth of diversity, the importance of individuality - as for ones self so for God - and in the more consolidated terms: The meaning of individuality in regards to freedom and everlasting life. It is as the conflict between Order and Chaos. One wants to go one way, another however another. Who is to say which way is best? You? I? God?

What I have from God is as much as that I have certain quirks that I thought I had to get rid of - yet to find that God is more so in support of them than anything else I ever thought of. So, for me personally. My life. Which leaves me to basically carry this to you as a personal revelation. That God isn't really concerned of whether you're smoking or not - for instance - although HE yet is or might be - there is no damnation in that. And HE isn't as concerned about it ... as ... . Well, I get the impression that the dear Father is somewhat ... uncomfortable about me writing these things. The problem being more the one that I now try to squeeze my experiences into an expression that would shape something as much as a teaching of doctrine - where the Universal truth has it that its up to God to tell you about that. You'll get to it your way. Where what I want to say here simply changes shape - meaning as much as: There will be those that get to think, relate, whatever to these things differently than you. And thats where I think, or hope, or want, our future is be going. That we learn to appreciate God, one another, in a sense of variety. To live and let live.

There is one particular writing within the NHC called "the Authentic Teaching" or something like that. The funny thing with this document is that once you replace the terms of 'inheritance' with terms of 'sexual intercourse' the thing at the start makes sense for once, but also does the entire rest of it start to do so as well. Near the end it so goes to say things that tell as much as that the world will be littered with Nonsense, and it will pick the 'goods' that we may cherish to pervert them into 'bads' so that we might toss them away and follow the lead of the deceivers. So, I hope ... this whole thing was useful to You! Sela!


Basically ... - since, whats really there to discuss?

Oh yea, I forgot - the way the previous part was supposed to end was to say that the way I went there would amount to as much as the collision between my way - however much elaborate I were or not - and any other one. Thus I thought it be better to focus on the bunch of stuffs that are to survive that collision.

And thats how I can continue here. Just some notes on how Buddhism, despite being as detached from Christendom as a Religion could possibly be - except Hinduism maybe (although the Biblical God has a beef with Idols while Buddhism isn't really Idolatry; Except for where it is but at that point its not really getting itself right either - since Buddhism is supposed to be about finding Enlightenment and not worshiping the Enlightened; At which point its similar to what I have on my deck to say; At which point this says what I had said in my original work), can contribute to our greater wealth. So, as a thing we don't need to throw away. This kind of "Zealotry" is something I pretty much don't want to see.

Part of what I have to say is also that 'this' work is different to the original - to say that I grew beyond what I had although one might regard that as the "real deal". The thing with the things now that are to survive is that they should stand out no matter what the contention in detail. You start at the beginning - the Gnostic Rule - rather than the end and fail to see where the two ways part eventually. And you may find that in the end those things are more self-explanatory than not - begging the question for what use any scripture has at all, provided that this knowledge is around. There certainly may be a lot thereof - and in certain ways that worth should be greater than that of any other religion or "Proto Religious "excuse"" - yet all of that also stands out as profanity. Its maybe worth a Job, or a Hobby - some fascination - for whatever reason; And I don't think its much different from other Philosophies and stuff at that point. Be it as it may, back or forth, "when in doubt" - and that is probably the biggest concern - those can only give you hints at the bigger picture while the bigger picture probably escapes its boundaries. We can so either be grateful that God graced us with a way or mad about HIM 'not' doing so.

For closure - I omitted the details on Unification herein, but the truth of that 'should' be separated from this as the true Baptism or the authority to baptize cannot be transfered by the written word. The living truth and the tradition need to work together for the tradition to be worth anything. Give or take. Outside of that - elsewhere you shall find what then would amount to something as much as a "Do it Yourself" kit. I don't know if you'll need me to 'get in', but I should doubt that. So ... "Happy Pathfinding" ... I guess! "See you when you get there!" (if you ever get there)