The “Salt” Lesson from an Abstract Crop Circle that Opens a WHOLE CAN OF HISTORICAL MINDPROGRAMMING

Posted: 2012/06/03 in Enlightenment, Religion, THETA
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Here’s an interesting abstract crop circle that appeared in Italy around the 24th of May the Celestials put in my attention as part of my breakfast. Well, you all know how MOMMA’s brain can be when I wake up, Kids.

The location where this crop circle was found is “Salo, Brescia, Italy.” Salò is a town and commune in the Province of Brescia in the region of Lombardy (northern Italy) on the banks of Lake Garda, and was the capital of Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945, with the ISR often being called the “Republic of Salò” (Repubblica di Salò in Italian). From 1943 to 1945 Salò was the de facto capital of Benito Mussolini’s Nazi-backed puppet state, the Italian Social Republic, also known as the Republic of Salò: Villa Castagna was the seat of the police headquarters, Villa Amedei was the head office of the Ministry of Popular Culture, Villa Simonini (nowadays Hotel Laurin) was the seat of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Stefani Agency, which distributed official press releases, was located in Via Brunati.

NOTE: A valid explanation seems to be that the name comes from the origins of the town that in the past used to be the economic capital in which a very important resource like SALT (in Italian “sale”) was kept.

SYNCHRONICITY: There was also a movie: Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (Italian: Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma), commonly referred to as Salò, is a controversial 1975 Italian drama film written and directed by Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini with uncredited writing contributions by Pupi Avati. It was based on the book The 120 Days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade. The story is in four segments inspired by Dante’s Inferno: the Anteinferno, the Circle of Manias, the Circle of Shit, and the Circle of Blood.

Because of its scenes depicting intensely graphic violence, sadism, and sexual depravity, the movie was extremely controversial upon its release, and remains banned in several countries to this day. It was Pasolini’s last film; he was murdered shortly before Salò was released.

The film focuses on four wealthy, corrupted fascist libertines after the fall of Benito Mussolini’s Italy in 1944 who kidnap a total of eighteen teenage boys and girls and subject them to four months of extreme violence, sadism, sexual and mental torture. The film is noted for exploring the themes of political corruption, abuse of power, sadism, perversion, sexuality, and fascism.


JOSEPH SMITH, the founder of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), was fascinated by Enoch, and actually identified himself with that extraordinary being. In his own final phase, Smith evidently studied Kabbalah, and came to understand that as the resurrected Enoch his ultimate transformation would be into the angel Metatron, the ‘lesser Yahweh,’ who is also the angel Michael and resurrected Adam. . .Joseph Smith thus brings together (whether he knew it or not) the three great esoteric traditions of Christian Gnosticism, Sufism, and Kabbalah.

Some of Joseph Smith’s later ideas are familiar to students of the Kabbalah, including the pre-existence of the human soul, the idea that God shares a bodily form with humanity, the promise of a career path with promotion elevating human beings to angelhood and beyond, and the premise of many worlds. The Kabbalah is a medieval renaissance of gnosticism. Early Christian authors like Tertullian, Irenaeus and Hippolytus fought tooth and nail against the gnostics, because their profuse and elaborate mythology simply cannot be reconciled with such bedrock Christian convictions as monotheism and God’s goodness. Let’s trace the history of one Kabbalistic idea, that primal Adam is the ‘Ancient of Days’ of Daniel’s vision, into the train-wreck that became the ‘Adam-God’ doctrine, which has by now been largely abandoned by the Latter-day Saints. Joseph himself taught that Adam was the ‘Ancient of Days:’

“And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;. . .” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants, Section 27:11).

So it is to Joseph, and none other, that we owe this identification of Adam as the “Ancient of Days.” Who is the Ancient of Days? That title occurs in one book of the Bible, the Old Testament book of Daniel, who saw the “Son of Man” receive a kingdom from the “Ancient of Days:”

“I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. . .I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Bible’s Daniel 7:9-14).

From whence comes the identification of this figure with Adam? From the Kabbalah:

“Ancient of Days — Atique Yomin — Zohar term

“The Ancient of Days, as it is described in Zoharic literature, is the garment for the sacred Primordial Adam. This is the cosmic adjustment/alignment of infinite light vis-a-vis the Primordial Adam. The act of clothing the upper body of Primordial Adam is the adjustment itself. This first covering (enclothing/protection, as it were) is through this state of the Ancient of Days. There are two major cosmic adjustments tikkunim. One tikkun is the protecting of Primordial Adam; this happens when the Ancient of Days bedecks and covers Primordial Adam. The second tikkun is when all entitities/archetypes/partzufim manifest and become the adornments of the Great Face — the Macro Face (Mavo Shearim, Shaar Gimmel 1:1).”

(SOURCE: Kabbalah of Creation: The Mysticism of Isaac Luria, Founder of Modern Kabbalah, by Eliahu Klein, Hayyim ben Joseph Vital, Isaac ben Solomon Luria, p. 219).

Thus we learn that the Ancient of Days is the primordial or original Adam, or more precisely the wrapper that he comes in, as of a garment of light. How does this fit in with the New Testament evidence? This of course is a question that would not have occurred to the Kabbalists, who were not Christians. But in the New Testament we learn that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man of Daniel’s vision. He so identifies Himself, including not only Daniel’s title ‘Son of Man,’ but also another element of the vision, the clouds:

“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30).

“Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64)

“And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” (Mark 13:26).

“And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (Mark 14:62).

“And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. (Luke 21:27).

Even some of the rabbis understood that the Son of Man in Daniel’s vision was the Messiah: “Till thrones were placed and one that was ancient did sit. Why were these necessary?. . .Now, that is satisfactory for all [the other verses], but how explain Till thrones were placed? — One [throne] was for Himself and one for David. Even as it has been taught: One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba’s view. R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Shechinah? Rather, one [throne] for justice, and the other for mercy. Did he accept [this answer] from him or not? Come and hear!” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 38b). So if Jesus the Messiah is the Son of Man, then who is the ‘Ancient of Days’ who gives Him the Kingdom? Well, who gives the Kingdom to the Messiah?:

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22).

“And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:29-30).

“Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” (Psalm 2:6-8).

Thus we learn that it is “God the Father” who gave the Kingdom to the Messiah, Jesus. The reader of the book of Revelation will have seen it as Jesus Christ, the image of God, appearing to John in similar fashion: “His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.” (Revelation 1:14-15). The chariot wheels were seen also by Ezekiel: “Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.” (Ezekiel 1:15-16). So the very appearance of the ‘Ancient of Days’ is not what the Bible-reader is conditioned to expect from a creature, from the man of clay. Add to this that He gives the Kingdom to the Son and the identification is clear.

Here is the TRAIN-WRECK: Joseph, a ‘prophet,’ identified Daniel’s ‘Ancient of Days’ with the primordial Adam, in accordance with the Kabbalah. This identification was repeated by his successors:

“Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all…And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:38-39).

This doctrine is repeated by churches to this day without really being questioned. The New Testament identifies Daniel’s ‘Ancient of Days,’ with also very little room for controversy, as “God the Father”. What happens when you put these two ‘revelations’ together?:

“The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary. The infidel world have concluded that if what the Apostles wrote about his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline acknowledged by Christendom be correct then Christians must believe that God is the father of an illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ! The infidel fraternity teach that to their disciples. I will tell you how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as i have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming “great is the mystery of godliness,” and tell nothing.

“It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

“Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, “it is an immaterial substance!” What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

(SOURCE: Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, Page 50-51).

The two locomotives, the Kabbalah and the New Testament, both come barrelling down the same track, and they meet at just about the point Brigham Young is standing. The hierarchy of the Latter-day Saints, more concerned with respectability than fidelity to Joseph’s vision, once they discovered how badly the Christian world reacted against the idea of old Adam, the original sinner, as God the Father, dropped it, just as they have done with Joseph’s other revelations, such as polygamy, that have proven unpopular. Not only does the idea of Adam as the ‘Ancient of Days’ not fit into the New Testament paradigm, it doesn’t fit well with Joseph’s other ‘revelations,’ for instance:

And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency…And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels…And, behold, there is a place prepared for them from the beginning, which place is hell.” (Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 29:36-38).

How is that going to work out: that the devil was “before Adam,” yet Adam is God the Father, the Ancient of Days? The devil, in Mormon mythology, is a sibling of Jesus and indeed of us all, our ‘spirit brother,’ one of the numerous spirit-children resulting from the union between Heavenly Father and Mother. We are left with God the Father descending into flesh, somehow in the descent losing or forgetting His deity and paternity, and so far losing His way as to be tricked by His own offspring, in a manner uncomfortably reminiscent of Hesiod’s Theogony. The intent of both doctrines, the Kabbalistic original and Joseph’s copy, is to be the same: to elevate man and to demote God. While it is certainly true that man was created in the image of God, what gets lost in this doctrine is that man was created in the image of God, he is not his own Creator:

Somewhere behind this, and now untraceable, there was an earlier Jewish Gnosis, perhaps largely an oral tradition, that was to flourish more than a thousand years later in medieval Provencal and Spanish Kabbalah. This ultimate vision of Adam, preserved later in Hermetic and Christian heterodox texts, has been called the doctrine of the God-Man, the primeval Anthropos. Sometimes this God-Adam was seen as identical with the highest God himself, so that the earthly Adam appeared as a copy or reflection of this original.”(Harold Bloom, Omens of Millenium, p. 161).

What has been lost here is the sense that, “Know ye that the Lord he is God; it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.” (Psalm 100:3). The man of clay who was fashioned in the image is not “identical with the highest God himself,” because he is the creature, not the Creator. Moreover such image as we bear has grown clouded and occluded owing to sin. That the image can be lost in this way is partly how we know it is not, and never was, physical conformation. As we are born again and refashioned into the same image in which we were originally created, we change inwardly, not outwardly: “And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” (1 Corinthians 15:49). When Harold Bloom asks, “Was God originally anything more than the Adam Kadmon?” (Harold Bloom, Omens of Millenium, p. 205), what Christian can fail to answer ‘Yes!’— because the intention here is not good, the intention is to elevate man and drag God downward. The usage of these terms starts with scripture, but takes a wrong turn at a certain point, at which it is prudent to bail out.

Even the Mormons cannot possibly want to wander in the Garden of Eden, lost with a God who has forgotten who He is. And yet they have not discarded the identification of Adam as the ‘Ancient of Days;’ they have merely suspended the laws of logic for as long a time as necessary to avoid the consequent identification of Adam as God the Father. Brigham Young, to his credit, was trying to make sense of the ‘revelations’ he had inherited from Joseph, but this simply cannot be done. In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph had revealed that God the Father had once been a mere man; what likelier candidate than old Adam, who had been plainly identified by Joseph as the ‘Ancient of Days,’ a divine title, understood as such by the Kabbalists? Like Joseph, the Kabbalists were not impressed by the barrier between God and man. Indeed they were not over-awed by God Himself, diminishing Him at every turn. Had these self-infatuated men taken the Bible to heart, rather than gazing rapt at their own marvellous selves, they would have fallen down on their faces and worshipped. So all Brigham Young did was connect the dots. But better not, better put your crayon away. For if you put these pieces together, if you assemble the machine according to instructions, it blows up.

There is a robust analogy between Joseph Smith and Mohammed ibn Abdallah, first suggested by Joseph himself, and later taken up by some of his early critics. Both men claimed to be restorationists; both collected a harem; both threatened violence against their opponents. One other point of similarity is that both men labored over a work product that could most accurately be described as a pastiche: a composite work made up of bits and pieces from here and there, not necessarily fitting together. For example, Mohammed ibn Abdallah borrowed from the Christian Docetists the idea that Jesus did not really die upon the cross. Because he gave no clear instructions to his followers on how this is to be understood, they favor various theories: Judas Iscariot was substituted, or maybe Simon of Cyrene, or maybe they crucified a phantom. The first people who told the story had a good reason for it: they were so fully convinced of the deity of Jesus Christ that they could not conceive of Him bleeding and dying on a cross.

Something that has been omitted from history is that the “God”-status of Jesus only started in Greece. This is why the manuscript everyone uses that you see from the British Museum is Greek. However, the more ancient manuscripts they don’t show to the world, some in Syria, confirmed by the writing of Jesus’ family, all this: Jesus is just a man. He became “God” after a political squabbling in 325 A.D. at the Nicean Council that Emperor Constantine presided. He need to calm down the riots between the Mithra (sun-god) worshippers with the cultic Christian group. Yes, Christianity was a cult at that time. If you follow real and true history, that is when the Christians adopted much of the paganistic symbols and holidays, and renamed all of them. 

Mohammed ibn Abdallah did not think that Jesus was God at all, he thought Him a mere prophet. So why is that story in the Koran? Perhaps because Mohammed believed, against the Bible, that prophets of God should never suffer reverses. Or perhaps it is there not to advance any particular agenda, but simply because he heard the story and put everything he heard into the Koran. The story has outlived its rationale, it has survived the heretics who first composed it: it is there for no reason, basically.

In a similar vein, did Joseph Smith fully understand that in buying into the Kabbalah he was embracing gnosticism with all its dark blasphemies? Did he really want to do that, or did he hear from his Kabbalistic informants that Adam was the Ancient of Days, and so just tossed that out there without a thought in the world for where it led? Was he a prophet like Mohammed ibn Abdallah who tossed everything into the hopper, or did he actually know what he was doing? In either case, his modern-day followers plainly do not consider him a prophet at all, because they will not follow where he leads. Brigham Young claimed to have learned this doctrine from Joseph himself. While some of the breakaway polygamous sects still believe in Adam-God, the Salt Lake City leadership has shoved him aside, along with his erring prophet.

Now, add all this with the Luciferian New Age Movement’s “Light” teachings. All came from SOL teachings, the worship of the “Sun” that evolved to worshipping of “Son”. All started 12,000 years ago through astrolatry. It is this that started the worship of anthropomorphic gods.

How did I know all this? 20 years ago, I became friends with Joseph Smith’s great great grandchildren and gave me TRUTH, when I spent a summer in Salt Lake City. It’s just interesting that I’m to be reminded of it today. I suppose it is time to teach this since America now has their first Mormon Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. This is what his church, the Latter Day Saints teach them since they were kids. It is a very powerful and wealthy religious organization. One thing I do appreciate at my time in Salt Lake City at the time is how clean the city is. You won’t see a lot of drunk people walking around. It’s like Libya under Gaddafi. They do not promote debauchery. Mormons do not even drink soda (or coffee). Good for them considering all those fetus flavors they put.

This would take more than one Sunday to tackle. So, one crumb at a time. But knowing this, you should start understanding what is happening to the planet’s spirituality, which is bankrupt. Hence, the Ego. The funny thing is, religions fight each other everyday when they all came from the same teachings. I’m the only one I know who choose to be neutral and have THETA, the Prime Source. I love everyone, so I have to wait for people to catch up and get their AHA moment 🙂

Digest this well. Knowledge is power. Be free.
  1. […] The “Salt” Lesson from an Abstract Crop Circle that Opens a WHOLE CAN OF HISTORICAL MIND… ( […]

  2. […] The “Salt” Lesson from an Abstract Crop Circle that Opens a WHOLE CAN OF HISTORICAL MIND… ( […]

Tell me your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s