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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

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]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

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?