DiscussMormonism.com

EE and Jersey Girl brought up some interesting points in the "Jesus/Jew" thread in the Terrestrial Kingdom that we were interested in following up on in a new thread here.

This is the main core of the information from the old thread. Jersey Girl can transfer up additional pertinent posts when she has a chance to look at this:

Enuma Elish wrote:Hello Jersey Girl,

I'm admittedly out of my depth in this however, I have seen many references to the Gnostic Gospels used as support for LDS theology by it's online apologists. Could that be the area of connectedness that vegas alludes to?

This is a good question. I have also heard Christian Gnostic texts used to support certain concepts within Mormonism--sometimes even effectively, I might add.

But these are separate documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls and I still think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who has ever written for FARMS advocating the believe that Mormonism is the fulfillment of Gnostic Christianity.

Regards,

E.E.

What both Jersey Girl and I were curious about, EE, is how you define Gnostic Christianity.

Also, I find it interesting that apologists are using the Gnostic Gospels as support facets for LDS doctrine when it has been clearly stated on many occasions that the Gnostic Gospels are not to be considered as part of LDS Canon.

Do you see this as possibly changing? I've done a little reading in some of the Gnostic Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Mary Magdeline, and it is fascinating stuff!

Here is another question by Jersey Girl posed to Gaz on the other thread, but could definitely be opened up to whomever would care to answer:

Jersey Girl wrote:

Gazelam wrote:Hugh Nibley frequently refers to gnostic writeings in his writeings and talks, along with apocryphal works. Mainly to show that Mormon Doctrine didn't come out of nowhere, there is a precedent to the things Joseph brought forth in restoreing the gospel.

Of coarce not all that is written in these various writeings is trustworthy, but much of it contains truth. Alot of what is in the Enoch writeingfs is very interesting, as are the things found in the various Abraham accounts.

Well, Gaz, what is your understanding of what constitutes "Gnostic Christianity" and how would LDS theology fit into what vegas has asserted regarding FARMS?

Jersey Girl

I'm not sure where to pick this up exactly, but here goes.

I don’t want to trivialize Vegas Refuge’s experience with the Dead Sea Scroll display, since I do not discount the possibility that some Latter-day Saints have incorrectly used the evidence from Qumran or the Nag Hammadi texts to support LDS claims, but contrary to his suggestion, any misrepresentation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts—as far as I’m aware— has not come from FARMS authors and/or publications.

I’m not aware of any LDS scholar who has made the clearly false claim that Latter-day Saints are the fulfillment of Qumranic Judaism. Vegas is simply wrong.

In the FARMS book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Questions and Responses for Latter-day Saints, authors Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks state:

“Our preparation of this volume does not imply a historical or theological connection between the beliefs of the people of Qumran and Latter-day Saints. Numerous similarities exist between any two religious groups, but here are also differences—and the differences often are more consequential than the similarities. While we may see several similarities between Latter-day Saint and the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we also see equally interesting similarities between the latter group and religious groups of other historical periods and locales. There are actually far more differences between the Qumranites and the Latter-day Saints than there are similarities.” (xii).

The idea that Latter-day Saints would view their faith as a fulfillment—whatever that word may mean—of Qumran is absurd.

Clearly, there are some interesting theological ideas in some of the scrolls, including one that I found a few weeks ago in which Melchizedek appears as the God who passes judgment on the deities mentioned in Psalm 82 (this carries important implications for understanding certain New Testament texts such as John 10, etc).

But Latter-day Saints need to use the evidence appropriately!!!

When traditions found within ancient texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library do parallel Latter-day Saint belief, some authors have pointed towards these connection as evidence that restored doctrinal truths unique to Mormonism were known to many of these ancient groups.

This would include, for example, the concept of a premortal human soul in the Nag Hammadi texts. As far as I’m aware, the best summary of the significance of these early Christian documents for Latter-day Saints is Kent Brown’s “The Nag Hammadi Library: A Mormon Perspective,” in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints.

In his analysis, Brown notes:

“One of the most prominent doctrines concerned the premortal existence of all souls. In the Apocryphon of James from Codex I, Jesus is quoted as saying to Peter and James, ‘Verily I say unto you, had I been sent to those who listen to me, and had I spoke with them, I would never have come down to earth.’ According to the same text, while speaking of the extent of the two disciples’ sufferings, he said, ‘If you consider how long the world existed (before) you fell (into it) and how long the world existed (before) you fell (into it) and how it will exist after you, you will find that your life is as single day and your sufferings a single hour” (pg. 259).

However, even Kent Brown expresses the need for caution in using the Nag Hammadi texts as evidence of LDS truths known to early Christians, “The significant presence of elements which have a very strange ring obliges one to exercise caution about where one places one’s enthusiastic support” (268).

I honestly suspect that many of the connections between Mormonism and Gnostic Christianity are simply a result of the fact that both groups draw upon similar traditions.

As Per Blide has shown, a significant portion of Gnostic language and ideology traces its origins to Jewish Apocalypticism; see “Gnosticism, Jewish Apocalypticism, and Early Christianity,” In the Last Days (Aarhus: Arhus University Press, 1994): 9-32.

However, this connection, according to Blide, was not a direct one. Instead, the link occurred through the mediation of Early Christianity, which itself developed out of Jewish Apocalypticism.

Even though the doctrine is seldom recognized, I believe that the idea of pre-mortal human soul appears in the Hebrew Bible itself.

liz3564 wrote:EE and Jersey Girl brought up some interesting points in the "Jesus/Jew" thread in the Terrestrial Kingdom that we were interested in following up on in a new thread here.

This is the main core of the information from the old thread. Jersey Girl can transfer up additional pertinent posts when she has a chance to look at this:

Enuma Elish wrote:Hello Jersey Girl,

I'm admittedly out of my depth in this however, I have seen many references to the Gnostic Gospels used as support for LDS theology by it's online apologists. Could that be the area of connectedness that vegas alludes to?

This is a good question. I have also heard Christian Gnostic texts used to support certain concepts within Mormonism--sometimes even effectively, I might add.

But these are separate documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls and I still think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who has ever written for FARMS advocating the believe that Mormonism is the fulfillment of Gnostic Christianity.

Regards,

E.E.

What both Jersey Girl and I were curious about, EE, is how you define Gnostic Christianity.

Also, I find it interesting that apologists are using the Gnostic Gospels as support facets for LDS doctrine when it has been clearly stated on many occasions that the Gnostic Gospels are not to be considered as part of LDS Canon.

Do you see this as possibly changing? I've done a little reading in some of the Gnostic Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Mary Magdeline, and it is fascinating stuff!

Weren't Gnostics the ones left outside, when the council met that decided which books would be included in the Bible?

From the earlychristianwritings.com:

A one-sentence description of Gnosticism: a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body, a religion that preaches a hidden wisdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape from this world.

Hmmm.. and the relationship to Mormonism brings up several questions:

1. This one's a disconnect: "Evil physical body"? Polygamy and plural marriage required for salvation just don't fit that. Mormons think we'll keep our physical bodies, or at least something very similiar. Mormons even think we'll procreate eternally with those physical bodies.

2. The one's a connection: "Hidden wisdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation"? This very closely connects to modern temple endowment ceremonies.

3. This one's a disconnect: "evil god of this world (the god of the Old Testament)"? How can this be? Mormons believe Jesus is the god of the Old Testament.

4. This one's a disconnect: "this world as the creation of evil powers"? According to the temple, Christ and a few angels created the earth. So does that mean Christ is an evil power?

Well, that's 3 for and 1 against. That doesn't sound like a firm endorsement of Gnostism from the Mormon side.

Well, that's 3 for and 1 against. That doesn't sound like a firm endorsement of Gnostism from the Mormon side.

Interesting points Harmony. I suspect that your observations, in part, provide the very reason that LDS scholars view Gnosticism as an apostate branch within the early Christian tradition.

Enuma Elish wrote:

Well, that's 3 for and 1 against. That doesn't sound like a firm endorsement of Gnostism from the Mormon side.

Interesting points Harmony. I suspect that your observations, in part, provide the very reason that LDS scholars view Gnosticism as an apostate branch within the early Christian tradition.

Do you think this is the part that connects Mormons with Gnostism?

a religion that preaches a hidden wisdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape from this world.

We're famous for our secrecy. And let us not forget the Council of 50.

Thank you, liz, for taking the time to transfer these posts! Just wanted to acknowledge that and say that I will begin participating on this thread tomorrow (Tuesday). As I stated on the thread of origin, I'm out of my depth on this topic, but I'd like to think that I'm teachable!

And thank you, Enuma Elish for changing your mind! Much appreciated!

Jersey Girl

Do we know what the Church's official stance is on the Gnostic gospels? Particularly the Gospel of Mary Magdeline and several others which seem to support Jesus being married?

It just seems to me that the gospels that were included in the Bible were "hand-picked" by committee. Who is to say that some of these other accounts aren't as accurate or more accurate regarding what went on during that time frame?

Hello Liz,

Do we know what the Church's official stance is on the Gnostic gospels?

One of the wonderful hidden secrets of Mormonism is that there really aren’t that many “official stances.” Liz, you once described yourself as a “cafeteria Mormon,” and I for one believe that your status can be a very positive thing.

Many of the Latter-day Saints who end up losing faith in the Restoration are fundamentalists. It’s really quite sad. In reality, being a Mormon allows a person to be a flaming liberal.

For instance, speaking personally, though I honestly believe that there exist a number of compelling reasons to intellectually accept the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text, historicity is by no means necessary in order for me to accept the book as scripture.

“All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it” (D&C 93:30).

Therefore, if God has told you that the book is “true,” even if it is not ancient, what else really matters? The same principle applies to anything within the Gnostic gospels.

Enuma Elish wrote:Hello Liz,

Do we know what the Church's official stance is on the Gnostic gospels?

One of the wonderful hidden secrets of Mormonism is that there really aren’t that many “official stances.” Liz, you once described yourself as a “cafeteria Mormon,” and I for one believe that your status can be a very positive thing.

Many of the Latter-day Saints who end up losing faith in the Restoration are fundamentalists. It’s really quite sad. In reality, being a Mormon allows a person to be a flaming liberal.

For instance, speaking personally, though I honestly believe that there exist a number of compelling reasons to intellectually accept the Book of Mormon as an authentic ancient text, historicity is by no means necessary in order for me to accept the book as scripture.

“All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it” (D&C 93:30).

Therefore, if God has told you that the book is “true,” even if it is not ancient, what else really matters? The same principle applies to anything within the Gnostic gospels.

I like your way of thinking, EE! :)

I was just curious as to whether or not you thought that any of the Gnostic gospels would ever be added to traditional LDS Canon.

It's just fun to speculate. LOL