Kore Kosmou Continued...

[volgadon]

3. Am I the only one who thinks that these documents match closely to what us Mormons beleive?

Perhaps you are. I could see a few similar points, but the differences are significant. Especially with the creation of the souls and their rebellion. Laying aside for a moment the difficulties around the idea that Joseph read it, you would need to show why he would have picked certain ideas and ignored others.

[economicsishard]

Perhaps you are. I could see a few similar points, but the differences are significant. Especially with the creation of the souls and their rebellion. Laying aside for a moment the difficulties around the idea that Joseph read it, you would need to show why he would have picked certain ideas and ignored others.

Assuming you know about some of this stuff relating to Hermetic texts and beliefs, which it certainly seems like you do, do you suppose that I would be wasting my time by trying to figure out if there are reasons he left out "this" or "included that", OBVIOUSLY this assumes that he even had access to this or read it. I guess my question would then be: given what we "know" about the Book of Abraham including both good things and here-say controversies, do you suppose that this text has any significance. For example, it certainly wouldn't disprove Joseph Smith's revelations. In fact it seems that this text supports Mormon doctrine when one considers the mysterious and legendary history of the Hermetic texts; i.e., if this text is in fact the "knowledge of the Gods" then this would provide irrefutable evidence of Mormonism's ancient origins. Is this necessary for belief? I am not yet sure, but it certainly begs the question, "What other texts or histories are out there that can help solidify the truth of Mormon doctrines?"

[economicsishard]

I think maybe that you are unaware that there are some here who are experts in these fields, but definitely keep breathing, ok? It's an important thing to do.

Just relax and slow down a bit, ok? Adderall is heavy stuff which can lead to neurological changes over an extended period of usage, and indeed it has not been around long enough to really know what these long-term changes can be. Just be careful.

Oh no worries, I am good to go, been doing this for years now, cholesterol at 117, low blood pressure, low triglycerides, and super super hot looks.Thanks for the heads up on the experts that are here on the forums. Do you folks have any books that you would suggest I refer to or read concerning my questions or concerning the occult, mystical traditions, etc. I'm looking for books 'outside' the realm of Mormon Scholarship and Upset Ex-Mormon Scholarship.

[volgadon]

For example, it certainly wouldn't disprove Joseph Smith's revelations. In fact it seems that this text supports Mormon doctrine when one considers the mysterious and legendary history of the Hermetic texts; i.e., if this text is in fact the "knowledge of the Gods" then this would provide irrefutable evidence of Mormonism's ancient origins. Is this necessary for belief? I am not yet sure, but it certainly begs the question, "What other texts or histories are out there that can help solidify the truth of Mormon doctrines?"

I don't really think it has much to do with LDS teachings, let alone present ireffutable evidence for them.

[economicsishard]

I was thinking more along the lines of certain problems in stellar evolution, such as Type II supernovae and how soon Eta Carinae is going to blow its nut. I've also been fascinated recently with the efforts to identify members of the original nebula out of which our sun coalesced, since a large number of them are bound to be still fairly close by (astronomically speaking at any rate), and how they can be identified by their metallicities, which is theorized to be pretty close to our sun's. One aspect of this is the identification (if possible) of the supernova(e) that provided the solar system's initial dose of heavy elements, and the approximate times of their ignitions -- it occurred to me recently that there may be some chronological discrepancies between the actual and theorized age of the solar system, because while we think we know how old the sun is based on its H/He ratio (which is confirmed incidentally by radiometric dating of long-half-life isotopes), we don't actually know how much helium the sun actually started with! Assuming that there was only a negligible amount is perhaps by Occam's razor the best course, but it must be recognized that even the Razor is only to be used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between models. In short, assuming negligible helium in the original birth nebula of the sun is a convenience only, and subject to falsification. The solar system may not be 5 billion years old after all, but perhaps only 3 -- depending upon just how much heavy material was gifted to it by the supernova(e) that provided us with our gold and uranium.

But I digress.

Very, very good, I like where you are headed. First, I have to say, thank you for realizing that the Universe is at least more than 7,000 years old; I guess I should assume that everyone thinks so, but you never know. First off, I must admit, when it comes to "theoretical physics" I was required to take only one course, and yes it included SOME theoretical astrophysics but mainly in the areas of celestial mechanics. I'll have to scratch my head for about an hour to remember everything we learned on theory like you are interested in, but I'll tell you this much. Being that mathematical equations, assumptions, and probabilities are the basis of nearly all "theoretical astrophysics", I'm talking "non-armchair" astrophysics (truth be told however, some "armcharing" would do wonders for the hardcore math nerds as many advanced mathematical expressions of astrophysical phenomena have been discovered by physicists doing things OTHER than thinking about physics) then the theories of astrophysics are only as good as that math that created them. What do I mean by that? Well first, let me say this, your ideas are dead on about the age of the Sun, physicists may be completely wrong, they may have the wrong equation, our human knowledge and capacity may not be sufficient to understand the true nature of the Sun or its age, and the list goes on and on. When discussing anything theoretical, even when its based on pure mathematics, its still subject to testing, proofs, new maths, new logic systems, etc. etc. I actually hate when scientists give definitive answers like the age of the Sun because even though their aging methodology may be the best we have as humans, it still doesn't justify or consider the fact that new math may become available tomorrow that would then tell us the sun is a totally different age! An example of what I am talking about, this should be simple; I'll show you the limits of our math, well the limits of math up to Calculus and a little beyond. Also, I show you this as an expression of my agreeing with your thinking and assessments of the Sun's age:

"Barber's Paradox"

There was once a barber. Some say that he lived in Seville.

Wherever he lived, all of the men in this town either shaved themselves or were shaved by the barber. And the barber only shaved the men who did not shave themselves.

Great story, right? But it raises the question:

Did the barber shave himself?

So, what's the answer?

If the Barber shaves himself then he can't shave himself because his rule was that he shaves only those who don't shave themselves

If the barber doesn't shave himself then he must shave himself because otherwise he will break his rules

No matter if the Barber shaves himself or doesn't shave himself, the Barber is unable to obey his rules, therefore a paradox. (yes, you must bend your mind a little for this one)

Now, why is this important?

In what is called "naieve set theory" a "SET" is merely a collection of objects, ideas, numbers, things, etc.

For example:

S = the Set of all bikes in the universe; that is every bike that is in existence right now, all types of bikes, ALL BIKES

P = the set of all pies in the universe; that is every pie that is in existence right now all pies all types of pie

So, S and P are just like boxes filled with bikes for S and pies for P; that's pretty easy to figure out.

Now, some sets are just boxes filled with junk as I described above, but then some sets are not described by the set itself; for example

Let's assume that the set T is the set of all non-bike objects. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't explain much right?

Well, that's the problem because that's the problem, yep, its a problem, why?

If I say, T is the set of everything but bikes, then T must contain the set T; that's right, it must contain itself. Unfortunately, T cannot contain itself. Therefore, the following phrase cannot be true under any circumstance given our language and understanding:

"There is a set named T that contains everything but Bikes" = contradiction, the set T cannot contain itself and still be the Set T

Same with the Barber"The Barber's shaving set is all those who DON'T shave themselves" = contradiction, the "shaving set" contains the Barber but cannot contain the Barber, so its a paradox.

This is a bigger problem that you think right now. This discovery occurred 100 years ago by Bertrand Russell and nearly shattered the foundation of all mathematics. The crazy part is that this problem remains unresolved to this day. The only way to get around it is by modifying the set or language of the set. For example:

"The set T contains only red balls, bikes, gumdrops, and lollipops"

or

"The set T contains red balls, and bikes, but it doesn't contain lollipops"

Now, considering science, first biology

A = the Set of all animals. this includes dogs, cats, horses, you name the animal its in there

Lets say we then start to blend this pot with a huge emulsion blender so its all mixed up really well; then we have a set of animal soup stuffs right?

Well lets say that we find another animal tomorrow, like a living breathing Jackalope

Here's the problem, since we defined A at a point in time and A is defined by the combination of animals that were in A before we found a Jakelope, then the existence of the Jackelope destroys our theory of the set A; this is because of course, we didn't have the Jackelope included in the group to begin with; so A is not the whole set of animals, it could be if we discovered ALL Animals but that might not happen because of evolution.

If we then say, the set of all maths, M, is defined as the combination of all maths that we have now, then if we have new maths tomorrow then our assumptions about maths today has been destroyed. This same thing goes for the sun's age.The set of all knowledge of the sun's age mixed together into a large dish allows us to define the sun's age by the combination of current theories and this combination points to the suns age being 5 billion years old or whatever, right? Well, if we discover new maths tomorrow, then the the our set of all knowledge about the suns age couldn't have ever been all knowledge about the sun's age because this new knowledge, incorporated into the set, changes the entire set being that we added new "ingredients."

The point is science is right as time approaches zero and hits zero; ie, at instantaneous points in time, science is valid, but as soon as time moves forward, science grows, therefore we are never able to define the true set of science.This means that if someone says, "Evolution is real and true" well it's true so long as everything we know about our current observable universe holds into infinity and held from infinity; then even it that is true, what if in another universe, the number pie instead of being 3.1415...etc, is actually 5.34234. Well then assuming that's the case, things may have evolved so that evolution is not longer true, but we are incapable of understanding this because its not observable to us, even though we must incorporate that knowledge in order for us to be able to say "evolution is real." So, my point is, you might be onto something with your assumptions. I'm going to review my astrophysics texts and class notes, so that we can have a real discussion.

Last thing, this is kind of cool for you to think about:

"One of the principal problems in astrophysics is the study of the structure and the evolution of stars, since the bulk of the matter present in the Universe is concentrated in the stars. It is common to deal with the internal structure of the stars separate from the structure of stellar atmospheres. The problems in the theory of the internal structure are formulated as differential equations, resulting from the conditions of mechanical and energetic equilibrium of the star [2]. The condition of mechanical equilibrium of a star is expressed as the equality of the force of attraction directed towards the interior of the star and the force of the pressure exerted by the gases and by light, which is directed outwards. The condition of energetic equilibrium is an expression of the equality of the amount of energy produced in a given volume of the star and the amount of energy emitted by this volume. In addition to the equilibrium conditions, the equations of state of the stellar matter, the absorption coefficient of the radiation and the law of emission of energy as a result of thermonuclear reactions, as a function of the density of the matter and of the temperature for the given chemical composition, are assumed to be known. Owing to the complexity of the equations, they are usually solved by numerical methods. The results of the theory of stellar atmospheres are sometimes employed as the boundary conditions, which renders the conclusions more reliable. These equations of stellar equilibrium may be reduced in a significant number of cases to the Emden equation"

One more, this is cool and it explains how financial econometrics relates to astrophysics so when you read the news about banks going bust because of high frequency finance traders, well this is where we get our maths sometimes:

"A type of problems in theoretical astrophysics in which mathematical methods of investigation are extensively employed. The principal task of theoretical astrophysics is the interpretation of results of observations with the purpose of studying the structure of the objects encountered in the Universe, and to study the physical processes taking place in it. In addition, there are certain mathematical problems of a general nature which are important not only in astrophysics, but also in other branches of physics and in mathematics. The most obvious example of the influence of mathematical problems in astrophysics on the development of mathematics is the so-called principle of invariance (cf. Invariance, principle of) [1], which was first considered in astrophysics, after which it was used to solve a wide class of problems in mathematical physics and certain problems in probability theory. "

We may never know how any of this works, but I guess thats why we have God right?

Edited May 31, 2012 by economicsishard

[economicsishard]

Also, as you probably noticed, I get off topic easy, my attention span needs work.

[mfbukowski]

Oh no worries, I am good to go, been doing this for years now, cholesterol at 117, low blood pressure, low triglycerides, and super super hot looks.Thanks for the heads up on the experts that are here on the forums. Do you folks have any books that you would suggest I refer to or read concerning my questions or concerning the occult, mystical traditions, etc. I'm looking for books 'outside' the realm of Mormon Scholarship and Upset Ex-Mormon Scholarship.

You might want to search this forum for posts on Masonry, the Book of Abraham and Kaballah, as well as the council of the gods, anthropomorphic conceptions of God and other LDS subjects which will lead you to "outside" source material.

Religious principles cannot be proven historically or scientifically, but there are certainly many many evidences of parallels in the beliefs of ancient peoples and Mormon beliefs, and they are discussed regularly here. Volgadon is certainly one of the prime posters on these topics. There are also many here who are very knowledgeable about Masonry- you might find some posts by "George Miller" and those will lead you to others.

But you must understand that all the parallels and similarities in the world will not provide "irrefutable evidence" of religious truth- that is only found by personal, subjective, spiritual revelation.

I suppose it is none of my business, but as an old guy familiar with ADHD, and various other, uh, medications, psychotropic and otherwise, all I can say is monitor your health carefully. I have been on medications for ADHD and found it impossible to "feel the spirit" while I was on those meds. I am not saying it is impossible, just that it was impossible for me.

As for further advice- a condescending attitude does not go far here- trust me, there are MANY here who have been over the same ground you seem to just be discovering.

Edited May 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Also, as you probably noticed, I get off topic easy, my attention span needs work.

In spite of your Adderall. Perhaps it is not working for you.

[mfbukowski]

We may never know how any of this works, but I guess thats why we have God right?

You mentioned "discovering new maths" - are you familiar with Kuhn? (If not you should be- study some philosophy of science)

Suppose instead of "discovering" them, we are "creating" them?

What are the implications of that thought for a God who is one of "us"- an anthropomorphic God? Where do his "organizations" of what is real end and ours begin?

What are the implications of that for the Mormon belief that our "kingdoms" add to the glory of his Kingdom?

[Stargazer]

Also, as you probably noticed, I get off topic easy, my attention span needs work.

You and me, both, friend.

BTW, interesting discussion about astrophysics and set theory. Unfortunately not very closely related to Mormonism!

Edited May 31, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

I don't really think it has much to do with LDS teachings, let alone present ireffutable evidence for them.

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, this is the prototypical ADD thread.

Squirrel!

[mfbukowski]

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, this is the prototypical ADD thread.

Squirrel!

Oh, man, I needed that!!!

:rofl:

[wenglund]

I came to these forums to find, perhaps, others who may be interested in searching schools of thought that were avialabe during Joseph Smith's days.

The English translation date for the Kore Kosmue in the pdf file you posted shows as 1880, nearly 35 years after Joseph's death.

Also, I briefly skimmed the writing and found very little that resonated with my understanding of the restored gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 31, 2012 by wenglund

[Buzzard]

Oh no worries, I am good to go, been doing this for years now, cholesterol at 117, low blood pressure, low triglycerides, and super super hot looks.

Some else who apparently knows you referred to you as a female, so you could be a "HCBW" on Cougarboard if your self description is accurate. (HCBW=Hot Cougarboard Wife)

[economicsishard]

You mentioned "discovering new maths" - are you familiar with Kuhn? (If not you should be- study some philosophy of science)

Suppose instead of "discovering" them, we are "creating" them?

What are the implications of that thought for a God who is one of "us"- an anthropomorphic God? Where do his "organizations" of what is real end and ours begin?

What are the implications of that for the Mormon belief that our "kingdoms" add to the glory of his Kingdom?

I say "discovered" because I beleive that the "maths" (UK terminology), well pure maths that is, are already in the universe waiting to be discovered. I believe, to a certain extent, Plato's analogy of "the cave". I think that the universe is full of all kinds of different truths just waiting for us to discover if we would only look up or look down far enough with an open mind.

[economicsishard]

The English translation date for the Kore Kosmue in the pdf file you posted shows as 1880, nearly 35 years after Joseph's death.

Also, I briefly skimmed the writing and found very little that resonated with my understanding of the restored gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, yeah, the Kore Kosmou would have been in German in Joseph Smith's days. The Kore Kosmou resonates only with those Mormon doctrines that I would call "fringe" doctrines, not the mainstream simple church accepted doctrines. Also, Wade, do you have experience with texts like this? Or who on the board knows about, studied, or studies the occult, mysticism, freemaonsry etc.?

[economicsishard]

You and me, both, friend.

BTW, interesting discussion about astrophysics and set theory. Unfortunately not very closely related to Mormonism!

I know right! But we can still have interesting conversations about things "beyond" religion, Of course I could have created an example of a religious set, to logically disprove religion, but that seemed boring, While this thread may be an ADD thread, at least its something interesting even though its borderline insaity. Not to worry, I'll research my next topic thoroughly before posting another thread in the future.

[mfbukowski]

I say "discovered" because I beleive that the "maths" (UK terminology), well pure maths that is, are already in the universe waiting to be discovered. I believe, to a certain extent, Plato's analogy of "the cave". I think that the universe is full of all kinds of different truths just waiting for us to discover if we would only look up or look down far enough with an open mind.

I am not sure why you would think that 2500 year old philosophy presents a sufficient understanding for today, when you don't use 2500 year old math or science, but that is your business, and is a good indicator of the reason we can't have a good discussion.

[mfbukowski]

Or who on the board knows about, studied, or studies the occult, mysticism, freemaonsry etc.?

Have you even read my posts?

Note to self: duh, of course she has not.

Bye.

Edited May 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[economicsishard]

You mentioned "discovering new maths" - are you familiar with Kuhn? (If not you should be- study some philosophy of science)

Suppose instead of "discovering" them, we are "creating" them?

What are the implications of that thought for a God who is one of "us"- an anthropomorphic God? Where do his "organizations" of what is real end and ours begin?

What are the implications of that for the Mormon belief that our "kingdoms" add to the glory of his Kingdom?

The philsopher David Hume explained this best in his work "The Treatise on Human Nature". For some background, Hume was hated by his peers because argued, essentially in simple terms, that belief is a growing funciton of all past knowledge combined with all discoveries of fautly past knowledge and knowlledge to e discovered. So, in terms of the Barber's Paradox and our failures as humans to understand the universe, then Hume would have argued that belive is the follwing: (keep in mind Hume lived in the 1700s, roughly 180 years before the discovery of set theory):

Let V = Beliefs Set

Let T = Time Set

T = {-Infinity, infinity} in days, minutes, hours, whatever you wish

V = {All past beliefs, Current Beliefs, Future beliefs}

Let B = Beliefs Set at any given Time Set

B = F(V|T) : "Beliefs are the sum of all beliefs at that have occured up to a certain time T" For example, if T = today, then F(V|T) = all beliefs from beggining of time up to now, given that time T = today

on a different level, we can say that all beliefs from -intinity to infinity, therefore constanly growing belief set would be:

B = Sum{(T = -infinity ----> infinity) of F(V, T)}: "All belifs that have existed, have been improved upon or rejectted, and all beliefs that ever will be"

This second Total belief set is wherein there lies a problem.

You asked what its implications are on belief in God, here are the implications:

Lets assume that God also progressives, just as he has asked us to progress; then Gods system of belief is very much similar to ours, albeit much more advanced in years and well defined and refined. His set of belief would then be B = F(V|T), so they would be subject to a time constraint with only the possibility of "best guessing" future states of the world given his current set and state of beliefs. This isn't too bad, however, because with math we can predict the future just not very well, but we are getting better at this. So, if God has become well versed at predicting the future due to his set of beliefs containing a good chunck more beliefs than man's beliefs then God's set of believes B = F(V|T) ~=~ B = Sum{(T = -infinity ----> infinity); this means that God has so many truths and beliefs that he is able to "semi-predict" outcomes to lets say ... for exampl ... 95% accuracy. This is in contrast to humans, and for the exmple I'll refer to an analyst on wall street. The best analysts on wall street with their math experience, prior knowledge, and belief systems is able to correctly predict stock market movements around 52% to MAYBE, at best 60% of the time. This means that the "best" wallstreet analsysts, these being analysts being approved members of the organizatnoin named "All America(no an) Analysts", can AT AVERAGE BEST predict only 2% to 10% better than just flipping a coin; once again, this is better than man has ever performend in the past so we are progressing. Now, I know someone will come here and say, "well I made a lot of money in the stock market blah blah blah, I predict better than that." Yep there are anomolies that is why I empahsize AVERAGE, the BEST AVERAGE!

If on the other hand we assume that God's knowledge is equal to B = Sum{(T = -infinity ----> infinity) without first considering that perhaps he had to learn this knowledge by himself, then this would be considered a God that doesn't need to progress since he knows all outcomes and knows all past. So no matter if you say God is progressin and knows all or he knows all without have to have progressed, then we end up with the same answer as Time approaches infinity; therefore not matter what God's belief is:

B = Sum{(T = -infinity ----> infinity); and this equation is a simple representation, using set theory, to express knowledge of everything in the past, everything now, and everything yet to happen; either way we look at God, he knows everything

Set theory is important in this respect because before this invention, David Hume's idea of constantly progressive beliefs was said to have contradicted Newtons simple representatino of definitive physyics; that is, Newton, in discovering calculus also theorized that the universe, at the smallest and the largest level will act according to a difinitive equation. He theoreized that the physical universe we see is the same at each level; ie., the quantum level behaves the same as our level of the Universe. Unfortunatley, this just isn't true and had people paid attention to David Hume, then would have looked beyond Newon's beliefs and created additional maths to explain the universe in all its complexity.

The insane part about mathematics is that it has the potential to predcit outcomes given 1, 2, 3, 4, .... hundreds, thousands, or even milllions and billions of different of variables as inputs. Unfortunatley, brains are not yet sufficiently "evolved" to handle these calculations. On that same note, our computers are also unable to handle these calculations, it would take too much power and too many years to conduct the processing of reliable answers. An example of our failure as humans in this areas is the "Traveling Salesman Problem" in computer science (look it up on wikipedia). For example, lets say I want to group all possible combinations of the letters (F, T, G, K), then I would calculate this by using a factorial

4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 4! = 24 combinatios to be studied

Now lets say that we have a group of (F, T, G, K, P, W, Y)

7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 7! = 5,040 combinations to be studied

what about 13 letters?

13! = 6,227,020,800 combinations

So we go from 24, to 5,040, to over 6 billion, in only 13 letters.

This means that if we want to compare 13 different combinations of 13 different variables, then we would need to study each and every combination group within the the total group of 6 billon combinations.

This is currently impossible to accomplish with our human minds, and once we reach around 15! to 17! then this is impossible for our current computers, the numbers are just too big to handle even the calculation of the different combinations; this is also the reason why its better to make a long password than a short one; if you password is 15 characters long, then it would take a very long time, I am talking hundreds of years, for a computer to crack your password through a "brute-force" gussing process.

So assuming God can make these calculations, then assuming that with these calculations he is able to make reliable predictions, then it is not necessary for God to remember anything, why? beucase his calculations are so pure and so correct that if he wants to know what you will in your life 10 years from now, or what you did when you were a child or what path is best for you, then he need only plug into his equation a few variables and then hit the big equal sign. No, I am not saying that I belived tthat God uses this method to "calculate" our lives, I use this merely as an illustration to explain my reconciliation of our constanly growing base of human knowledge compared to God's knowledge. Like I demosntrated above, no matter if I think God progresses or God just always knew everytihng, this doesn't matter, I get the same answer no matter what, ahd that asnswer is, God knows everything!

[economicsishard]

Have you even read my posts?

Note to self: duh, of course she has not.

Bye.

I did, but I didn't see names. That's what I was asking; and to everyone else, I'm not a [edit], just a single girl with a boyfreind

You already had a warning about using even abbreviated terms for profanity. Your stay will be short lived if you keep it up.

[economicsishard]

I am not sure why you would think that 2500 year old philosophy presents a sufficient understanding for today, when you don't use 2500 year old math or science, but that is your business, and is a good indicator of the reason we can't have a good discussion.

ahhh, touche, very true, very true, well you are correct I must say but only to a certain extent. What I mean is, if the Kore Kosmou is in fact the knowledge of the Gods, then that knowledge is light years beyond our knowledge because its Gods knowledge; I'm not arguing, I'm only presenting my reasoning. If this were math, then no, I wouldn't be using 2500 year old math crap for calculations that may be easier to do using today's math. This is one reason why these texts fascinate me, if they are the "knowledge of the Gods." then these texts arre very important beucase they explain things that our sets of human knowledge neither contain nor can contain until a later date.

[economicsishard]

As an experiement, I'm not sure if this has been done. It would interesting if someone was able to reverse engineer new belief systems given the "knowledge of the Gods." This of course would assume that the Kose Kosmou is in fact Gods knowledge. I know that every religions study I've ever seen does not use ancient text like the Kore Kosmou to verify our reality, but instead we only verify the reality of the text by judging it given our reality.

[Maidservant]

Hi, economicishard, I also love old texts, although I am VERY amateur and just getting started.

Here is something I think though.

One of the oldest still existing samples of writing is a beer recipe. (Or so I once read.)

So I take human beings as human beings whether or not they live today or 10,000 years ago. I do not think that an ancient text, by the sheer virtue of its ancient-ness, is closer to the knowledge of God. I mean, in our society we write a lot of things. We write, for example, how an aspirin a day keeps a heart attack away. Is this the truth? Or is this marketing for a failing aspirin industry? Is it more or less true that we should be eating veggies and bypassing drug substances of any sort and how would a future archeologist of our society even know we thought that if all he had in his hands were aspirin texts? Of course, the difference between now and then is the level of proliferation of texts that we have nowadays which is simply not part of the formula for looking backwards into time and the lower statistics of literacy for the average joe in any given ancient society.

The point being that the purpose for which these ancient texts is highly contextual, and our only guesses for the context are the texts themselves, contemporary texts, surviving architectural rubble, and archaeology.

I did not read the "kore" piece, but I did read the Ptah-hotep piece and I just, like I said, I was laughing at how "samurai" it sounded, or maybe those manners books that used to be written a couple of centuries ago in English society, I don't know. But the Ptah-hotep piece is not so much an expression of fundamental religion, politics or philosophy as it is a highly personal piece of a man who lived a life in a particular "cultural bath". So the "cultural bath" leaks through the piece, but it is not a direct explanation of the "cultural bath" nor pretends to be.

The personality who wrote Ptah-hotep was a particularly emotionally generous person. There doesn't seem to be a need in him to condemn or punish for infraction, while on the other hand there is still the favor toward a multitude of social rules. For example, I loved the line about how to treat one's wife. It was utterly generous and utterly a sense of how precious she is as a woman--give her everything and treat her devoid of any harshness--yet at the same time there is definitely the assumption that he owns her.

So what we have here is a highly developed, and highly derived culture at 4000 BCE. In other words--it's not something that's just starting, that is on the edge of a brink of a generation or so subsequent to band level humans (if we like that version) or of Adam and Eve, a single pair, starting out (if we like that version). I.E. if ownership of a woman is assumed, then this cannot be a natural progression from either band level humans nor Adam/Eve, so it is a learned/chosen belief--and WHY?? So MY question would be, what is that heritage? What is that heritage that would produce a highly derived expression like the Ptah-hotep instructions well before Ptah-hotep became an expression of it? (A beer recipe is highly derived as well.)

Bringing in Joseph Smith, the wonderful thing about this is the revelatory nature of Joseph's experiences, and of the continuing nature of revelation to us today. That is, we have a living church. And while we speak on the Restoration, on the other hand there is no necessity that what we know or believe now (religiously) be tied directly to the past because it is allowed to be something new, something revealed. So in this sense, it doesn't matter whether or not what Joseph Smith brought forth has a direct tie to ancient texts, although I think he went about it that way.

On the other hand, for me anyway, if we are engaging with a Jewish text we call Genesis, and we are taking it as the initial word on humanity--it cannot take that hit (in my opinion). If Genesis is "better" or more true, then it is because it is also revelation based ("new") to Moses or to whomever first got that. NOT because it is ancient, because it hardly is AS Genesis. It's thousands of years younger than a lot of other cultural information.

But texts are not, after all, the basis of my faith. But I do want to enjoy my faith with my eyes wide open regarding texts. But, for example, the Kore text--so? It's a very poetic piece. But it seems derived to me. There is no one saying, my name is [ancient Egyptian dude] and God spoke to me, or Isis visited me, and told me what happened. It seems to me to be a piece based on an entire belief system already in place and this is an example literature. Not an initial, fundamental literature. An EXAMPLE literature of a "cultural bath" already in place.

[wenglund]

Wade, yeah, the Kore Kosmou would have been in German in Joseph Smith's days. The Kore Kosmou resonates only with those Mormon doctrines that I would call "fringe" doctrines, not the mainstream simple church accepted doctrines. Also, Wade, do you have experience with texts like this? Or who on the board knows about, studied, or studies the occult, mysticism, freemaonsry etc.?

I have only a minimal exposure to hermetic texts and mysticism, and little more exposure to Freemasonry. So, I can't be of much help. Several here look to "George Miller" as the resident expert on Freemasonry, though I haven't seen him post here in awhile. I am not sure, but Volganon may be of some assistance with mysticism given his background in Kabbalah.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-