Mormons and Gnosticism

[Seminarysnoozer]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by 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. :-)

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]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

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.