Is there anything wrong with being a 'Gnostic' Mormon?

[Aesa]

Well, obviously for starters this is only relative for people who aren't going to say something like "this only leads to damnation." Those notions are ofcourse welcome, I can't control what you post.

Anyway, I have been wondering if there's anything wrong with being a gnostic Mormon? I've always said that Mormonism is Gnosticism gone literal (some might use that to verify Mormonism?). For example, in a lot of gnostic groups all members had to write their own gospel to be fully initiated and this I think goes well with the notion in LDS circles of the importance of record keeping. Also, Gnostics believe they can become Gods - but in this life, by reaching a certain "realisation" ... a level of "gnosis" or knowledge. This could, if you want it to - go in with the importance of ordinances [replace with knowledge] in regard to salvation. However I'm a bit hard on this one because I understand knowledge as being a realisation, truth does not come from word of mouth ... it is not told.

Anyway, what I'm wondering in full is - what's wrong with a Mormon who doesn't take the "literal details" literally? Or, is this acceptable in the Church?

[cjmaldrich]

Another type of trouble faced the church in the form of heretical doctrines and schismatic groups, the most dangerous of which was Gnosticism. Even some of Paul’s letters attack early manifestations of this heresy. The Gnostic movement became an immense peril to the church in the second century. The three letters of John and those of Jude and 2 Peter were written primarily to attack and defend church doctrine against this dangerous heresy.

-C. Kent Dunford, 1972 New Era (LDS.org - New Era Article - The Genesis of the New Testament)

I would be careful with what you do and how you choose to practice any religion, particularly with the LDS church. We are not a Gnostic organization, though taken with a literal definition we encourage an ever-increasing amount of "gnosis." We as members are very much encouraged to seek out knowledge by going to school, reading books, studying the scriptures, praying for revelation, civilized discussion/debate, etc. The knowledge that we're encouraged to seek, though, is the knowledge of God.

I'm no expert, but it seems that Gnosticism encourages (correct me if I'm wrong so I can be smarter ) taking scripture or doctrine and mixing in some of your own ideas or philosophies and twisting them together into something that works for you.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints takes scripture very seriously. It isn't a free-flowing set of documents that can be edited and changed as needed. We believe that the scriptures are literal accounts of literal people (even, literally, Jesus Christ our lord and savior) and contain literal doctrine. We believe that those scriptures and doctrines contain literal "rules," if you will, that every man must live by or face the consequences of not.

If you are gaining "gnosis" that builds your faith and goes along with the doctrines found in our scriptures, that is good knowledge.

[NeuroTypical]

Anyway, what I'm wondering in full is - what's wrong with a Mormon who doesn't take the "literal details" literally? Or, is this acceptable in the Church?

Well, the church teaches that the literal details are literally literal. So, to the extent that you choose not to accept literal truths as literal truths, you will always have a portion of your beliefs at odds with church teachings. For example, if you wish to enter the temple, you must sustain the President of the Church as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. And you ought to define all those terms the same way the person does who is giving you the interview. You must also be a full tithe payer and live the word of wisdom. Those things are all entrance criteria if you wish to enter the temple. There are plenty of mormons who do not go to the temple.

But, are you asking about how your beliefs will relate with church teachings, or are you asking about how church members will relate to you?

Church members, like any other demographic, will have a wide range of responses. Nobody knows anything about Gnostic beliefs, so their reaction to you will be based on how they react when an unknown challenges their belief system. So yeah, you'll meet the "you're going to damn yourself" mormons you mention (you've probably met a few already). And you'll meet folks like cjmaldrich, who seem to know something about it. And you'll meet me, who is friendly enough, but who doesn't really have much of a grasp on things Gnostic to offer a decent opinion.

[HiJolly]

Well, obviously for starters this is only relative for people who aren't going to say something like "this only leads to damnation." Those notions are ofcourse welcome, I can't control what you post.

Anyway, I have been wondering if there's anything wrong with being a gnostic Mormon? I've always said that Mormonism is Gnosticism gone literal (some might use that to verify Mormonism?). For example, in a lot of gnostic groups all members had to write their own gospel to be fully initiated and this I think goes well with the notion in LDS circles of the importance of record keeping. Also, Gnostics believe they can become Gods - but in this life, by reaching a certain "realisation" ... a level of "gnosis" or knowledge. This could, if you want it to - go in with the importance of ordinances [replace with knowledge] in regard to salvation. However I'm a bit hard on this one because I understand knowledge as being a realisation, truth does not come from word of mouth ... it is not told.

Anyway, what I'm wondering in full is - what's wrong with a Mormon who doesn't take the "literal details" literally? Or, is this acceptable in the Church?

I've pondered these very same points in detail, myself. At one time I asked myself - "should I consider and label myself a Gnostic Mormon? for in fact, I have received gnosis."

Well, that lasted for only a few months as I investigated it. My first blow was reading the Gnostic Bible, which just blew me away in a really bad way. I was taken forcefully away from the Spirit as I read it. Major bad vibes, baby.

I don't blame those who started the Gnostic movement anciently. I have often wished that the LDS membership consisted solely of people who really *knew* that the Church was true, Jesus was Christ, God was God, etc. (I have repented of that since). And I think that's how Gnostics started -- they had to prove to each other that they were each the 'real deal' in terms of spiritual progression. Which entailed periodically proving it, by producing inspired scripture. If they did not, they were cast out.

And that was the beginning of the end. MUCH false doctrine was produced by those who wished, for one reason or the other, to remain in the Gnostic movement. In the end, I think the Catholic Church was right to eliminate the movement, though I think the *way* they did it was not 'kosher'.

As a part of my investigation, I read Lance Owens writings and emailed him several times. I ended up not ever feeling the spirit in those experiences, and did not ever regret concluding our interactions. No loss there, for me anyway...

Plus there are some bedrock beliefs of Gnosticism that are complete contrary to the restored Gospel, such as "physical = evil" (a Greek philosophical view). Lance Owens believed that Joseph Smith Jr. was gnostic, but the scriptures that came through Joseph completely refute this idea. Curl up and read through the D&C and you'll see what I mean.

I am now a Mormon Mystic, and have been for over 10 years. It's like a very comfortable set of worn slippers, though it probably took me 5 years to 'break' the slippers in.

HiJolly

[skalenfehl]

I'm not sure I understand since I haven't been exposed to gnosticism. What I know to be true, I know because I have received a witness and also because I have learned line upon line, precept upon precept the truths taught in the scriptures. I don't know what Nephi looked like or what he wore, I don't know how tall Christ was, but I do know that they are alive and well and that both walked the earth. I know that what they both saw and taught are also true. That's about as gnostic as I can get. Not sure how helpful this is.

[HiJolly]

Anyway, what I'm wondering in full is - what's wrong with a Mormon who doesn't take the "literal details" literally? Or, is this acceptable in the Church?

I forgot to address this last question. The more I learn, the more I take literal details as figurative pointings to eternally true principles. Clearly, some things are literal. Where you draw the line is up to you.

I know a faithful member who doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is literally true, and yet feels entirely fine when getting his temple recommend. I went through my last interview with him in mind, asking myself if I could honestly get the recommend if I didn't believe in the literalness of the BoM. I concluded that I could.

That amazed me, but then I saw that the temple recommend focuses not on *doctrine* so much as on discipleship. It was an uplifting experience for me.

FWIW, I absolutely am convinced that Moroni appeared to Joseph, that Joseph received physical 'golden' plates, and so forth. (Just so you know). :)

HiJolly

[Elgama]

There is a lot wrong with being a Gnostic Mormon in my opinion as the main premise of gnosticism is to include philopsophies from other places not just in terms of practice but in terms of faith an knowledge. We need to take our curent prophet liteally, because that is the stage we are at with our undestanding.. we need to lean on our Saviour and Heavenly Father to progress as all the knowledge in the mortal world can only teach us snatches of eternity we hampered right now they are not. As the scriptures say they know our end from our beginning we don't, if we are leaning on our own knowledge how can we hope to navigate through life successfully?

-Charley

Edited December 20, 2008 by Elgama

[HiJolly]

There is a lot wrong with being a Gnostic Mormon in my opinion as the main premise of gnosticism is to include philopsophies from other places not just in terms of practice but in terms of faith an knowledge.

...but that's just what Joseph Smith Jr. did, Elgama. And he commented that he was doing it, too, and in public. So that's not a valid concern, IMO. Brigham Young also endorsed this practice.

We need to take our curent prophet liteally, because that is the stage we are at with our undestanding.. we need to lean on our Saviour and Heavenly Father to progress as all the knowledge in the mortal world can only teach us snatches of eternity we hampered right now they are not. As the scriptures say they know our end from our beginning we don't, if we are leaning on our own knowledge how can we hope to navigate through life successfully?

-Charley

The Bible also says (in the NT) that there *is* such a thing as 'saving knowledge'. FYI.

HiJolly

[bytor2112]

I am now a Mormon Mystic,

What does a Mormon Mystic believe?????

[Guest tomk]

What exactly do you mean by Gnostic?

[HiJolly]

What does a Mormon Mystic believe?????

I was going to say, "Have I not been among you this long, and yet you do not know me?" ---- but that sounded way to presumptuous, so I decided not to.

But I have posted over 900 posts on this board, plus have have thousands of posts over on MA&DB, if you want to know what *I* believe. I cannot speak for any other Mormon mystic, though, as we are a very individualistic bunch.

Essentially, I suppose you could say I believe in continuing revelation, that everyone should become a prophet, and that regular, prayerful contemplation of all things is quite helpful. I take Joseph's life as VERY instructive. Oh, and of course I believe the scriptures and and the 13 articles of faith, etc.

And while I know that the return to heaven is an individual task we each must engage in, yet I also know that we require communion with the body of the Saints, in our journey(where possible).

HiJolly

[Elgama]

...but that's just what Joseph Smith Jr. did, Elgama. And he commented that he was doing it, too, and in public. So that's not a valid concern, IMO. Brigham Young also endorsed this practice.

But that knowledge should in no wise be contrary to the iron rod we have or the current prophet. Nor should it on any level replace Heavenly Father.

The Bible also says (in the NT) that there *is* such a thing as 'saving knowledge'. FYI.

Knowledge as I stated should not become God merely a means to know him and understand our progression.

-Charley

[HiJolly]

What exactly do you mean by Gnostic?

Wiki has a pretty good entry on the subject.

Gnosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In particular, that first line

Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge, γνώσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint or mystically enlightened human being.

is exactly in line with mormonism, IMO. And it's not even discussing the Apostolic Gnosis.

HiJolly

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

There are some similarities.

However, the common gnostic view that the body is evil and is something to reject is completely and irrevecably inconsistent with God's view.

[Moksha]

Seems to me that there are indeed elements of the Church that could be considered gnostic, such as sacred and secret knowledge that can only be passed on to qualified initiates (unless they Google it ).

The great thing about the LDS Church is that members who hold everything as being literal, can share the same pews with those who hold many of those things to be allegorical. This applies to science as well: Those who have an 8th Century appreciation of science, can also worship along side those from the 21st Century. :)

[jolee65]

Well, obviously for starters this is only relative for people who aren't going to say something like "this only leads to damnation." Those notions are ofcourse welcome, I can't control what you post.

Anyway, I have been wondering if there's anything wrong with being a gnostic Mormon? I've always said that Mormonism is Gnosticism gone literal (some might use that to verify Mormonism?). For example, in a lot of gnostic groups all members had to write their own gospel to be fully initiated and this I think goes well with the notion in LDS circles of the importance of record keeping. Also, Gnostics believe they can become Gods - but in this life, by reaching a certain "realisation" ... a level of "gnosis" or knowledge. This could, if you want it to - go in with the importance of ordinances [replace with knowledge] in regard to salvation. However I'm a bit hard on this one because I understand knowledge as being a realisation, truth does not come from word of mouth ... it is not told.

Anyway, what I'm wondering in full is - what's wrong with a Mormon who doesn't take the "literal details" literally? Or, is this acceptable in the Church?

Then why bother.

[HiJolly]

Then why bother.

= wet blanket.

HiJolly

[Guest tomk]

Wiki has a pretty good entry on the subject.

Gnosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In particular, that first line is exactly in line with mormonism, IMO. And it's not even discussing the Apostolic Gnosis.

HiJolly

Technically, I guess that is true of Mormonism.

Where does the path of the Gnostic depart from Mormonism, then?

[Hemidakota]

Well, obviously for starters this is only relative for people who aren't going to say something like "this only leads to damnation." Those notions are ofcourse welcome, I can't control what you post.

Anyway, I have been wondering if there's anything wrong with being a gnostic Mormon? I've always said that Mormonism is Gnosticism gone literal (some might use that to verify Mormonism?). For example, in a lot of gnostic groups all members had to write their own gospel to be fully initiated and this I think goes well with the notion in LDS circles of the importance of record keeping. Also, Gnostics believe they can become Gods - but in this life, by reaching a certain "realisation" ... a level of "gnosis" or knowledge. This could, if you want it to - go in with the importance of ordinances [replace with knowledge] in regard to salvation. However I'm a bit hard on this one because I understand knowledge as being a realisation, truth does not come from word of mouth ... it is not told.

Anyway, what I'm wondering in full is - what's wrong with a Mormon who doesn't take the "literal details" literally? Or, is this acceptable in the Church?

Would it help you to achieve in witnessing the Godhead and receive the celestial glory?

[HiJolly]

Where does the path of the Gnostic depart from Mormonism, then?

Already discussed, at least in one or two ways, in this thread, tomk.

HiJolly

[Guest DeborahC]

Since "gnostic" means "mystically enlightened" ... I believe ALL Mormons are "Gnostic," since we are mystically enlightened by Joseph Smith and his successors.

However, this could easily be confused with those following the writings in The Gnostic Gospels, which include books not in the LDS Scriptures, and ideas of which some ARE and some are NOT taught by LDS Scripture.

A few of those scriptures include:

1 The Acts of Peter and Paul

2 The Book of Revelation: The Two Witnesses

3 The Book of Thomas

4 Gnostic Egyptian Cosmic Drama

5 The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

6 The Hypostasis of the Archons

7 Thunder, Perfect Mind

So I guess it depends on how you're using the word "Gnostic."

Edited December 20, 2008 by DeborahC

[Aesa]

I'm reading through all the responses, but this one particularly caught my attention:

In the end, I think the Catholic Church was right to eliminate the movement, though I think the *way* they did it was not 'kosher'.

The thing is, they haven't. History would actually truly say that Gnostics were the first Christians, but that's not relative to this discussion really.

Gnosticism is back, big time.

Anyway, I'm reading through the rest of the responses now.

[HiJolly]

The thing is, they haven't. History would actually truly say that Gnostics were the first Christians, but that's not relative to this discussion really.

You think so? I think you're dead wrong.

Gnosticism is back, big time.

All sorts of wierd beliefs are back, big time. Even Odin worship.

HiJolly

[Aesa]

Would it help you to achieve in witnessing the Godhead and receive the celestial glory?

But the point here is, whether that's something literal or something that happens to our consciousness on earth.

All sorts of wierd beliefs are back, big time. Even Odin worship.

And what on earth is wierd about that?

I thought this was a place of tolerance and respect.

You call it wierd, but have you ever even caressed any of the Sagas or Eddas from the Scandinavians?

You think so? I think you're dead wrong.

Well you're ofcourse entitled to disagree with me.

But on strong analysis it does look that way.

The writings of Paul are all we have between the death and ressurection of Jesus, and then the syoptic gospels. There are different dates as to the space between Jesus' death and the writing of the gospels. Some say 30 years, some say 100 years - it depends on whether you use an honest source. For the sake of discussion let us go midway and say they were written around 50 years after the ressurection of Christ in or around 80-87AD.

All else we have are the writings of Paul that, even though they seem to condemn gnosticism (that's a whole other discussion), actually affirm gnosticism perfectly. Paul doesn't know any of the details about Jesus being a physical person on earth, he doesn't know about the literal apostles, he doesn't know about Pontius Pilate, etc, etc,. All he talks about are what would call the "Mysteries". The crucifixion, the death, the ressurection.

Then, after this, we have the synoptic gospels which wrote Jesus Christ into history. Other than those there's nothing that could pass as a primary source, because in academic circles (and I think we're talking in that tone?) scripture is considered not a primary source but a faith document.

[bert10]

AESA......Going ahead of the pack spiritually...can have some drawbacks. Such as if you try to teach what GOD has taught you for yourself to the Church you can get you excommunicated for it.

Also if you go ahead of the pack there is no safety net provided...So who is going to catch you if you fall?

Just be aware that there are pitfalls associated with this. In the BOM the LDS who are in their fine apparals in the glass house shall point and ridicule those who are following the Rod. And they did say many who let go of the rod because of this...were lost in the mist. I do not say that it is better to be in the glass house...but one should be aware...that this road is for they who truly hunger and thirst and are not satisfied with the milk.

To be a wayfaring man [isaiah] is a lonely road to travel on, for truly you will meet few on this road. The gnostics were persecuted and killed in the latter part of the Early churches for having beliefs that were no longer in line with the churches thinking.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Well, obviously for starters this is only relative for people who aren't going to say something like "this only leads to damnation." Those notions are ofcourse welcome, I can't control what you post.

Anyway, I have been wondering if there's anything wrong with being a gnostic Mormon? I've always said that Mormonism is Gnosticism gone literal (some might use that to verify Mormonism?). For example, in a lot of gnostic groups all members had to write their own gospel to be fully initiated and this I think goes well with the notion in LDS circles of the importance of record keeping. Also, Gnostics believe they can become Gods - but in this life, by reaching a certain "realisation" ... a level of "gnosis" or knowledge. This could, if you want it to - go in with the importance of ordinances [replace with knowledge] in regard to salvation. However I'm a bit hard on this one because I understand knowledge as being a realisation, truth does not come from word of mouth ... it is not told.

Anyway, what I'm wondering in full is - what's wrong with a Mormon who doesn't take the "literal details" literally? Or, is this acceptable in the Church?