Were Mormons gnostic?

[Phantasman]

Reading the BoM, I found this in 4 Nephi 1:

23 And now I, Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly arich, because of their prosperity in Christ. 24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in apride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.
25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more acommon among them.
26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up achurches unto themselves to get bgain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.
27 And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did adeny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been bforbidden because of unworthiness.


This fits in line with separation of the gnostic scriptures, almost to the date. Around 200 AD was the time period Tertullian introduced Trinitarianism. Verse 27 also aligns itself with the exclusion of the non Canonical Gospels.



An interesting thought, since I don't believe JS was familiar with the gnostic Gospels.

 

[joneysd]

Reading the BoM, I found this in 4 Nephi 1:

23 And now I, Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly arich, because of their prosperity in Christ. 24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in apride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.
25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more acommon among them.
26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up achurches unto themselves to get bgain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.
27 And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did adeny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been bforbidden because of unworthiness.


This fits in line with separation of the gnostic scriptures, almost to the date. Around 200 AD was the time period Tertullian introduced Trinitarianism. Verse 27 also aligns itself with the exclusion of the non Canonical Gospels.



An interesting thought, since I don't believe JS was familiar with the gnostic Gospels.

I believe they have to believe the bible is in error or incomplete to make their new gospel possible and acceptable while still using the bible as a source of authority to prop up the BOM and their doctrines.

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

This fits in line with separation of the gnostic scriptures, almost to the date. Around 200 AD was the time period Tertullian introduced Trinitarianism. Verse 27 also aligns itself with the exclusion of the non Canonical Gospels.

Sethians and Valentinians were trinitarians long before Tertullian.

 

[williamgramsmith]

Some Gnostic thought, not all is in line with the "original" Gospel of Christ.
Thus, the Restoration does restore some of these important doctrines.

 

[joneysd]

Some Gnostic thought, not all is in line with the "original" Gospel of Christ.
Thus, the Restoration does restore some of these important doctrines.

It restores nothing of importance that we don't already have in the bible.

 

[Soulgazer]

In actuality, some biblical thought, but not all, is in line with the "original Gospel". "Gnostic" is a much abused term--- it meant "scholar", and they were oppposed by "pagans" or "uneducated".

 

[Phantasman]

Sethians and Valentinians were trinitarians long before Tertullian.

WIKI says about Tertullian:

He is perhaps most famous for being the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin, trinitas),[5] and giving the oldest extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology.

Just going by study.

 

[Phantasman]

I believe they have to believe the bible is in error or incomplete to make their new gospel possible and acceptable while still using the bible as a source of authority to prop up the BOM and their doctrines.

I'm sure there are errors. And I do not believe the Bible is all sources of the Gospel truth. I simply don't trust those that killed Christ to tell me what he said or meant.(Romans)

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

WIKI says about Tertullian:

He is perhaps most famous for being the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin, trinitas),[5] and giving the oldest extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology.

Just going by study.

If memory serves correct he used the term "trinitas" to describe the Valentinians, although I believe in regards to a tripartite nature of man. Gospel of Truth has a trinitarian system in it and if we assume it is authored by Valentinius himself we have a pre-Tertullian system of a trinity.

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Harold Bloom has likened Mormonism with Gnosticism if memory serves.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Harold Bloom has likened Mormonism with Gnosticism if memory serves.

The problem with that is that LDS don't accept any gnostic books as scripture. Evidence of belief of the time, and history etc, but not scripture of God.

 

[Phantasman]

The problem with that is that LDS don't accept any gnostic books as scripture. Evidence of belief of the time, and history etc, but not scripture of God.

JS didn't know of the non Canonical Gospels, probably. I know that non Canonical Enoch (OT) seems to be accepted though.

 

[fatboys]

It restores nothing of importance that we don't already have in the bible.

I Think your a closet Mormon. Lol

 

[audiologic]

I wouldn't say they're "Gnostic", exactly. On top of not generally accepting the Gnostic Gospels (like those found at Nag Hammadi), Mormonism still seems to be based around supplication rather than self-realization. To the Gnostics, Christ WAS the Son of God, but only to establish that we ALL were. This is how they often interpret the reference "Son of Man", to establish his humanity and relation to others.

Mormonism, though not orthodox, is still centered around the idea that Christ came to cleanse us of our impurities, and that His sacrifice paid for our sins. They don't assume (I think?) that we're all capable of the feats He was capable of.

 

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

To the Gnostics, Christ WAS the Son of God, but only to establish that we ALL were. This is how they often interpret the reference "Son of Man", to establish his humanity and relation to others.

I don't think you are correct on this. The Son of God was far more than merely you an me. The Son of God was one of the person of the trinity. A part of the God head. You'd find this in both Sethian and Valentinian systems.

 

[audiologic]

I don't think you are correct on this. The Son of God was far more than merely you an me. The Son of God was one of the person of the trinity. A part of the God head. You'd find this in both Sethian and Valentinian systems.

Well, I think it depends. I do know that the Gnostics view Christ as an actual manifestation of God, which none of us are...however, He came to set an example of what was accessible to us.

I could be wrong on that. Either way, I DO know that Gnosticism focuses much more on self-empowerment, as well as (generally) viewing the supreme being that created the universe as a malicious entity, and God came in the form of a snake to open man's eyes to the knowledge that was hidden from them. Materialism is shunned, and the "true" spiritual world is accessed through the teachings of Christ - the only other true manifestation of God. Those teachings were centered around "bringing forth what is within you" and so on...more self-sufficiency than supplication.

 

[joneysd]

I Think your a closet Mormon. Lol

I think you are deluded.

 

[Meta Tron]

/

 

[RevelationTestament]

Enoch would necessarily have to be accepted,

As to JS's awareness of the existence of other non canonical (Gnostic) text, it would be extremely difficult to disregard;

The timing and circumstances surrounding the discoveries of The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Nag Hammadi Codices correlate precisely with the above passage. Two "witness'" of the early development of Christianity raised from the sand.

Those are admittedly circumstantial evidences.

If we accept the definition of Gnosis as "direct experiential knowledge of God" then we have to allow that JS's narrative of His revelations "would" be quintessentially the apex of the experience of Gnosis, per se'.

Let's look a little closer. Is the practice of seeking "direct experiential knowledge of God" a part of LDS faith? ABSOLUTELY! In fact, they actually set aside a time on a regular basis for testimony of exactly those type of experiences that others might believe. (Fast & Testimony)

To be clear: While members of the Church of Jesus Christ do believe in direct experiential knowledge of God, and indeed often base our testimonies on this, we do NOT accept the gnostic books including the currently known Book of Enoch. I currently believe that the book now known as the Book of Enoch is a gnostic fabrication, or at least adulterated. While it may contain truth, I do not believe it is inspired by God. The Book of Enoch referred to by D & C will come from a different source.

 

[Phantasman]

Enoch would necessarily have to be accepted,

As to JS's awareness of the existence of other non canonical (Gnostic) text, it would be extremely difficult to disregard;

The timing and circumstances surrounding the discoveries of The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Nag Hammadi Codices correlate precisely with the above passage. Two "witness'" of the early development of Christianity raised from the sand.

Those are admittedly circumstantial evidences.

If we accept the definition of Gnosis as "direct experiential knowledge of God" then we have to allow that JS's narrative of His revelations "would" be quintessentially the apex of the experience of Gnosis, per se'.

Let's look a little closer. Is the practice of seeking "direct experiential knowledge of God" a part of LDS faith? ABSOLUTELY! In fact, they actually set aside a time on a regular basis for testimony of exactly those type of experiences that others might believe. (Fast & Testimony)

Some valid points. But if JS had known of Gnosticism, would he have seen it as a sort of restoration as well. Of lost ideas.

I don't know if the Dead Sea scrolls have as much influence on Gnosticism as the Nag Hammadi find. One influences the OT and the other the Gospel, respectively.