Mormons and Gnosticism

[rameumptom]

On her blog, April DeCondick (Professor Rice Univ, scholar on Gnosticism) has been doing a few interesting blogs lately. Recently, she gave a quiz on her blog to ask "how gnostic are you?" I scored a 10, a reformed gnostic.

The discussion on that thread was interesting as a LDS friend of mine, Stephen and I discussed why and why not Mormonism could be seen as a form of modern Gnosticism.

April is now asking if Gnosticism is heretical, and why? She notes the former discussion, showing that Mormonism is different from Orthodox Christianity, for many of the same reasons Gnostics were considered heretical anciently. Thoughts and comments?

The Forbidden Gospels: Are Gnostics heretics?

[prisonchaplain]

I'll check out the link, but, as an outsider, I definitely see some gnostic undertones in LDS thought.

I scored 2: Not a Gnostic. Considering that penteocstals believe in continuing revelation, and in the importance of an experiential relationship with God, I find it interesting that I didn't score a little bit higher.

Edited November 2, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Vort]

Where is the quiz?

EDIT: Here it is.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Vort

[Seminarysnoozer]

Why are Muslims considered 'traditional religion'? Don't they believe that the old testament was not put together correctly and the Qur'an is the correction but using some of the stories found in the Old testament? And Christianity uses many traditional Jewish stories as well from the Old testiment. So the only 'traditional religion' as she puts it would be Jewish out of those three choices. 'Traditional' only depends on where you draw the time line, before and after what time?

I am out of the loop with these discussions since I have never studied religion in school and as my name suggests I slept through seminary classes but it seems to me all this talk about naming certain belief systems would only be useful in studying people who believe religion is something made up by man (which most are). And then dividing all these man made philosophies into certain definitions. What is the purpose of dividing man made religions into certain names and designations? Other than to argue over the name? It's like arguing over race. Are Brazilians black? or are they their own race? Or trying to decide if contestants on Indian 'Who wants to be a millionaire?' are smart or not when you have no cultural familiarity with the questions.

If one believes religion comes from God, than philosophical designations mean nothing and especially if you are trying to take a specific religion (i.e.- LDS) that you believe comes from God and trying to describe it using man made designations.

I am not trying to rain on your parade .... well maybe I am, but not intentionally. I am trying to understand the significance of categorizing religions into philosophical designations unless you are trying to work on your PhD or something. Or maybe trying to point out that man's descriptions have a hard time explaining Gods works while man's descriptions can do a pretty good job of describing man's work. So, one clue that one might have the right religion is when one looks at a quiz like that and it becomes obvious that it is hard to put your religion and beliefs in any of those categories ... and one does the quiz a few times and comes up with a different score each time. It is interesting, sorry don't mean to be negative .... its Monday.

[Traveler]

It is interesting that the measurement of truth suggested by Jesus were fruits. With this symbolism Jesus suggest that a church not be reproved for their doctrines but for their deeds.

As Jesus said in his day - for which of my deeds do you intend to stone me? And the apostates of his day answered - Because of your doctrine that a man can become a g-d.

And so we can ask ourselves - which churches of our modern era behave more like the Pharisees and which church behaves more like Jesus (one sent by G-d to teach truth) in this example?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

By the way, Ram, you and Stephen made very good comments on that web site.

[Moksha]

IT came to pass, when Jesus had risen from the dead, that he passed eleven years discoursing with his disciples, and instructing them only up to the regions of the First Commandment and up to the regions of the First Mystery, that within the Veil, within the First Commandment, which is the four-and-twentieth mystery without and below--those [four-and-twenty] which are in the second space of the First Mystery which is before all mysteries,--the Father in the form of a dove.

What the First Mystery surroundeth. And Jesus said to his disciples: "I am come forth out of that First Mystery, which is the last mystery, that is the four-and-twentieth mystery." And his disciples have not known nor understood that anything existeth within that mystery; but they thought of that mystery, that it is the head of the universe and the head of all existence; and they thought it is the completion of all completions, because Jesus had said to them concerning that mystery, that it surroundeth the First Commandment and the five Impressions and the great Light |2. and the five Helpers and the whole Treasury of the Light.

And moreover Jesus had not told his disciples

After I read the opening of the first line I thought this might be Book of Mormon text. It is from the Pistis Sophia of the Christian Gnostics.

[prisonchaplain]

Why are Muslims considered 'traditional religion'? Don't they believe that the old testament was not put together correctly and the Qur'an is the correction but using some of the stories found in the Old testament?

Islam is traditional because it is its own religion. It makes no claim to being an extension, replacement, or restoration of Jewish or Christian faith. One form of Christianity that is not tradition, ironically, is Messianic Judaism. It claims to be a completion of Judaism. As such, like your church, it is non-tradition, and quite revolutionary. Nevertheless, I view the Messianics as a group with more truth than the traditionals...seeing any parallels?

And Christianity uses many traditional Jewish stories as well from the Old testiment. So the only 'traditional religion' as she puts it would be Jewish out of those three choices. 'Traditional' only depends on where you draw the time line, before and after what time?

Not true. Christians are not traditional Jews. But we are traditional Christians. Further, Catholics might even have an argument in saying that Protestants are not traditional Christians. Well, we certainly aren't traditional Catholics.

It's like arguing over race. Are Brazilians black? or are they their own race? Or trying to decide if contestants on Indian 'Who wants to be a millionaire?' are smart or not when you have no cultural familiarity with the questions.

Brazilians are white non-hispanics, for the most part. They are also not considered Latinos. There's not argument. The categories have meanings, and people either fit or don't fit.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Brazilians are white non-hispanics, for the most part. They are also not considered Latinos. There's not argument. The categories have meanings, and people either fit or don't fit.

Thanks.

"Brazil has the largest population of black origin outside of Africa with, in 2007, 7.4% classyfing themselves as preto (black skin color) and 42.3% as pardo (brown color). The latter classification is broad and encompasses Brazilians of mixed ancestry, including mulattos and caboclos making the total 49.5%."

Well, just barely white (50.5%). But see that's why for me it would be hard to call them either black or white. It is quite diverse, in some states like Bahia it is 80% black ancestry. I was trying to make a point of how mixed it is to even make that designation. I've been to Brazil many times, my dad used to work there. And I have many brazilian friends that come visit me here. And they never make that distinction of black or white, that is a typical American thing (Except my friends from Bahia that are proud to call themselves 'preto'). They just call themselves Brazilian, that was the point I was trying to make. Sometimes designations are external from certain perspectives just like these religious designations.

I disagree with people either fitting or not, especially where I am, San Diego, there is much discussion all the time over these designations that I think is ridiculous. People end up making their own designations like Chicano when they feel like they have to "fit" into some category or not. In the end it really serves no purpose other than to promote separation.

I am admittedly ignorant to the philosophical categorization of Religions, so share with me what is the benefit gained by these designations like 'Gnostic'? ... especially when people can't agree with what that means, from the little I read.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Islam is traditional because it is its own religion. It makes no claim to being an extension, replacement, or restoration of Jewish or Christian faith. One form of Christianity that is not tradition, ironically, is Messianic Judaism. It claims to be a completion of Judaism. As such, like your church, it is non-tradition, and quite revolutionary. Nevertheless, I view the Messianics as a group with more truth than the traditionals...seeing any parallels?

"Muslims regard their religion as the completed and universal version of a monotheistic faith revealed at many times and places before, including, notably, to the prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Islamic tradition holds that previous messages and revelations have been changed and distorted over time."

... sounds like they view their religion as a replacement to me.

[prisonchaplain]

Seminary...when it comes to races, there's only white, black, and asian, I believe. So many, that I would consider "brown" are considered white. So if the 50% that are white, and the 40% that are brown are added together, that's 90% white--since "brown" is not a race.

As for Muslims. Indeed, they believe they've obtained the one true monotheistic faith. But they do not claim to be Jewish or Christian. With over 1,200 years under their belts, they've earned the title traditional religion (especially vs. groups like the Nation of Islam and the Moorish Science Temple of America).

I understand your overall thrust--that categorization is often useless. On the other hand, allowing for no cateogories or clear definitions is a muddled chaos, is it not?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Seminary...when it comes to races, there's only white, black, and asian, I believe. So many, that I would consider "brown" are considered white. So if the 50% that are white, and the 40% that are brown are added together, that's 90% white--since "brown" is not a race.

As for Muslims. Indeed, they believe they've obtained the one true monotheistic faith. But they do not claim to be Jewish or Christian. With over 1,200 years under their belts, they've earned the title traditional religion (especially vs. groups like the Nation of Islam and the Moorish Science Temple of America).

I understand your overall thrust--that categorization is often useless. On the other hand, allowing for no cateogories or clear definitions is a muddled chaos, is it not?

That definition of 'Pardo' is Brazilian description of those people that have ancestry from Africa, that is not describing Latin blood. It is a mix of African and Portuguese, or African and Italian. I didn't include that in the quote so maybe you don't know what that means. Brown in this case is not like Mexican or Puerto Rican latin brown. About 50% of Brazilians have ancestors that came from Africa. - thats what they call 'brown' Those that have ancestors purely from Italy or Portugal they call white. And in the south where there is some German immigration, then its more obvious. With your interpretation, you are calling Pele and Ronaldinho white, do you realize that? They both are of mixed ancestry, so called 'brown' or 'Pardo' in Brazil. Yes, they are a little more on the darker side but they are of mixed ancestry.

" * 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent);

* 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent);

* 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and

* 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent)"

from Henry Louis Gates, Jr., In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past, New York: Crown Publishing, 2009, pp. 20–21.

With your definition of 'brown' then about 64% of African Americans should call themselves white?

That doesn't make sense. About 48% of Brazilians if they came to this country would be called black, not white. Have you been to Brazil? If so, what area? If you are down in the South it does look very white, like in Puerto Allegre, but as you start to move north it is distinctly black.

As far as the Gnosticism thing goes, I give up. The definitions are too many. Mormons don't have secret knowledge necessary for salvation, just sacred. It is available to everyone, not just prophets or high leaders. If that is one of the criteria, I don't know, seems like it is in one of the definitions. Since we don't have 'secret' information needed for salvation, we are not Gnostics. right?

[prisonchaplain]

The knowledge gained in the Temple leads to spiritual growth, empowerment, and increased closeness to God. While anyone can earn the recommend, not everyone does. So, in that broad sense, there is a Gnostic "tone." Whether the teachings expressed in the temple, or some of the instruction beyone what I learn at this site actually corresponds to formal Gnostic doctrine is a matter beyond most of us here, me thinks.

BTW: Forgive my pretention about Brazil and race--you obviously know much more than I, and I see how racial categorization can be more complex than it seems--even with only three or four.

[bytebear]

Even if you consider temple worship "secret" it is not required for exaltation. Baptism is required for Celestial glory. Additional blessings may be gained by temple worship, but they do not include salvation. The temple is not the "strait gate," baptism is.

If you think about it, Family Home Evening could be seen as a spiritual act that also gives additional blessings, but it also does not open the gate to salvation (although it may help along the path).

[rameumptom]

Even if you consider temple worship "secret" it is not required for exaltation. Baptism is required for Celestial glory. Additional blessings may be gained by temple worship, but they do not include salvation. The temple is not the "strait gate," baptism is.

If you think about it, Family Home Evening could be seen as a spiritual act that also gives additional blessings, but it also does not open the gate to salvation (although it may help along the path).

Actually, the temple sealing IS required for exaltation. Baptism is required for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. One can be in the Celestial Kingdom and not exalted. (see D&C 76, 131, and 132).

For salvation, baptism is not required (at least as far as we know right now). Faith in Christ and repentance are required for salvation. This guarantees redemption from spirit prison's hell and the grave (see 2 Ne 9).

Since there are levels of salvation, there are differing requirements for each level of salvation.

The temple DOES hold sacred secrets. The concepts taught in Clement's letter on the Secret Mark confused the discoverer, Morton Smith. He was convinced that it meant the secret rite was a homosexual event. But any endowed Mormon who reads Clement's letter would immediately recognize temple ritual.

It is like Hugh Nibley's mentioning years ago about an ancient text that mentions a person receiving a new/secret name, and killed for revealing it. The scholars were uncertain just why someone would be slain for doing such a thing. Mormons who know the pre-1990 endowment would understand.

Or in my copy of the Odes of Solomon, the author describes Ode 23 (discussing a sealed book) like this:

ODE 23.

The reference to the sealed document sent by God is one of the great mysteries of the collection.

Not a mystery to Mormons, who have a clear understanding of what the Ode tells us: the coming forth of the Book of Mormon!

[prisonchaplain]

One matter that may help in all such discussions--something can be "Gnostic-like" and still be deeply true and meaningful. Many Christians have come to embrace the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses that Halloween is something to be countered, not recklessly celebrated, and yet we do not subcribe to the Watchtower. :-)

[Vort]

One matter that may help in all such discussions--something can be "Gnostic-like" and still be deeply true and meaningful. Many Christians have come to embrace the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses that Halloween is something to be countered, not recklessly celebrated, and yet we do not subcribe to the Watchtower. :-)

Very slight off-topic remark: Has anyone else noticed how vastly improved the Watchtower's production quality has gotten over the decades? Both the layout and the content have improved so much that it's almost not recognizable as the same pamphlet we used to get in the 1980s. Apropos of absolutely nothing; just saw PC's comment and thought I'd mention it.

[bytebear]

Actually, the temple sealing IS required for exaltation. Baptism is required for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom. One can be in the Celestial Kingdom and not exalted. (see D&C 76, 131, and 132).

For salvation, baptism is not required (at least as far as we know right now). Faith in Christ and repentance are required for salvation. This guarantees redemption from spirit prison's hell and the grave (see 2 Ne 9).

Since there are levels of salvation, there are differing requirements for each level of salvation.

I am only going to disagree in what we emphasize over what Jesus and the apostles emphasized. They continually emphasize baptism as the gate to salvation (exaltation). Today we know more about the blessings of the temple. But being endowed and sealed do not change your state of being. I think the "higher levels" of the celestial kingdom is not the emphasis of the Gospel, although I think we in the church tend to think it ism. So, it's semantics. but the single, unendowed member is just as saved as the temple married member. Both will live in the presence of God.

[Traveler]

There are some things that have troubled me in the landscape of religious discussions. It is the tendency to take a truth and categorize it based on our particular paradigm. For example, I brought up a scripture in the Bible where Jesus, following his resurrection, taught his disciples things pertaining to the Kingdom of G-d for 40 days. My question is why were those teachings not recorded? Also why would the Bible tell us such a thing took place if it really was not important or something to be concerned about?

I do not know if these 40 teachings of Jesus were secret or if somehow the Gnostics got hold of them or an edited version of them. I do not know if early Christian powers that were, like Constantine and Theodosius, edited the doctrinal landscape to appease “Pagan” elements within their political power base in order to create or preserve an empire.

I do know that the Bible hints at there is more to understand than what it offers to us in its pages. I believe knowing the truth is the companion of knowing G-d. We all want to pretend we are saved because we “know” something that someone else does not know and until they accept that knowledge (that we have) they cannot be saved. That is the only purpose I can understand to the temptation to separate ourselves into religious sects.

I do believe that the effort to search and seek truth is as important (perhaps even more important) than having truth. In part it is because I believe the concept in the Bible that tells us that if all the truth that should be written about Christ, because it would be “beneficial” even for our salvation, was indeed written that there would not be libraries big enough to contain it all.

Jesus taught that knowledge of the Kingdom of G-d is like a “pearl of great price” and that we should be willing to take all we have to purchase it. Was he suggesting our belief paradigm? An so it is that Jesus taught about of “pearls of great price” for 40 days and I find many in various religions that say they are disciples of Christ not only reject a possible pearl of great price but even warn against any consideration of such a thing as dangerous.

I am concerned when a search for truth becomes a type, hint or excuse of heresy.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Even then, a secret-name, unique to an individual is hardly "secret knowledge." Understanding the meaning behind it could be secret, but I think again, this is not secret it is sacred and not kept from anyone who really wants that information. I think all religions require some knowledge, knowledge of Christ or parts of their gospel that can only really be gained by attending some meeting or form of instruction or study, are those secret too then?

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler...while the quest for truth is admirable, evangelicals in particular, believe the Bible contains all God meant for us to have--certainly from that time period. You are well aware that there are many other writings out there from the time--the Gospel of Thomas, of Judas, etc. The Apocrapha also. There's nothing wrong with studying these to gain some insight of the time, and the thinking that was out there. However, for discerning God's word, those materials are to be treated much like the writings of men today--useful, perhaps valuable--but not a source of "deeper truths," that the Bible has veiled. Such a thought line is very troubling to us--and we tend to overreact when we sense people are going in that direction. The Da Vinci Code and Brown's new one, for example, were quick fotter for rebuttals.

[rameumptom]

I am only going to disagree in what we emphasize over what Jesus and the apostles emphasized. They continually emphasize baptism as the gate to salvation (exaltation). Today we know more about the blessings of the temple. But being endowed and sealed do not change your state of being. I think the "higher levels" of the celestial kingdom is not the emphasis of the Gospel, although I think we in the church tend to think it ism. So, it's semantics. but the single, unendowed member is just as saved as the temple married member. Both will live in the presence of God.

But living in the presence of God does not denote exaltation. D&C 132 notes that exaltation means living the kind of life God lives: being a God. This requires being sealed for eternity, because God's work is to expand his kingdoms and dominions, having children and grandchildren (which a single person cannot do).

Is the baptized person in the Celestial Kingdom a glorified being? Of course. But that is still different than exalted.

Jesus and his apostles emphasized baptism as the gate. But it wasn't everything. In another thread, we've discussed the secret teachings of Jesus (in the Secret Book of Mark), where there is a higher level of teaching given to the chosen initiates. Just because it isn't in the Bible, does not mean it wasn't taught.

And it has been restored, and is discussed in modern scripture. The BoM has the endowment interlaced throughout it. D&C 131 and 132 definitely state the requirement for exaltation.

D&C 131:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

D&C 132:

6 And as pertaining to the new and aeverlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my bglory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God. 7 And verily I say unto you, that the aconditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, cvows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by frevelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this hpower in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ikeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.....

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

That last verse is the clencher. Without the temple sealing, they are without exaltation. No mistaking the wording there.

[Moksha]

After I read the opening of the first line I thought this might be Book of Mormon text. It is from the Pistis Sophia of the Christian Gnostics.

Moksha, in your highlighting the phrase, "It came to pass...", are you not suggesting a new textual apparatus for determining the correctness of the scriptures? It would seem that in your taxonomy, the greater the frequency of "It came to pass.." the more good the scripture would become.

You have taken great strides in setting up a questionable pun with this scholastic effort. Now take your meds.