Ponderings on nudity and modesty

[Vort]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Great summary.  However, it would seem that many want to take advantage of the Gnostic flaws and attribute more to Gnosticism than they deserve.   For example, many believe that the Book of Enoch was a Gnostic addition that copied much of the New Testament.  In fact, this is what was claimed when the Book of Enoch was rejected as scripture in the 4th Christian century.    But we now know that the Book of Enoch preceded any New Testament writings by as much as 300 years before Jesus was born.

"Gnostic" has long become a shorthand way of saying "something I think is heretical". There are many early Christian heresies that were not gnostic, simple misunderstandings or falsehoods. Sadly, some true principles were classified early on as gnostic; thus, the restored gospel sounds to some people like a resurgence of Gnosticism. The Gnostics themselves were hardly a uniform group with well-defined beliefs and clear-cut doctrine. So, for example, while Gnosticism generally rejected a literal resurrection*, in some cases Gnostics allowed for it when trying to prove another point, e.g. that the post-mortal Christ delivered important truths to Peter.

*The primitive Church fought this particular heresy from the beginning, certainly relatively early in Paul's career, as in 1 Corinthians 15.

Most Latter-day Saints don't really understand the difference between apostasy and heresy, since we generally only use the first term to cover both concepts. Apostasy means when you depart from gospel truths and leave it and the Church behind you, while heresy means believing and teaching as gospel things that are untrue and not part of the gospel. The apostate will generally admit himself/herself as being apostate (though they'll say they are "apostate" from a false tradition), while a heretic will not recognize his heresy (because he thinks that his beliefs are right and everyone else is mistaken about the gospel). Thus, the person who abandons the Church in disbelief, asking that his name be removed, is well and truly an apostate, while the person who considers himself a good Latter-day Saint but thinks the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve don't hold the keys of the kingdom is, properly speaking, a heretic.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Vort

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Vort said:

"Gnostic" has long become a shorthand way of saying "something I think is heretical". There are many early Christian heresies that were not gnostic, simple misunderstandings or falsehoods. Sadly, some true principles were classified early on as gnostic; thus, the restored gospel sounds to some people like a resurgence of Gnosticism. The Gnostics themselves were hardly a uniform group with well-defined beliefs and clear-cut doctrine. So, for example, while Gnosticism generally rejected a literal resurrection*, in some cases Gnostics allowed for it when trying to prove another point, e.g. that the post-mortal Christ delivered important truths to Peter.

*The primitive Church fought this particular heresy from the beginning, certainly relatively early in Paul's career, as in 1 Corinthians 15.

Most Latter-day Saints don't really understand the difference between apostasy and heresy, since we generally only use the first term to cover both concepts. Apostasy means when you depart from gospel truths and leave it and the Church behind you, while heresy means believing and teaching as gospel things that are untrue and not part of the gospel. The apostate will generally admit himself/herself as being apostate (though they'll say they are "apostate" from a false tradition), while a heretic will not recognize his heresy (because he thinks that his beliefs are right and everyone else is mistaken about the gospel). Thus, the person who abandons the Church in disbelief, asking that his name be removed, is well and truly an apostate, while the person who considers himself a good Latter-day Saint but thinks the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve don't hold the keys of the kingdom is, properly speaking, a heretic.

 

Thanks again @Vort.  Someday we should get together for dinner and have a long discussion.  BTW, In August I will be in the Seattle area – unfortunatly I will be with a small gang but if there is some down time perhaps we could have dinner or something and just chat.

It is interesting to me that Isaiah describes an apostasy as a rebelling against G-d (turning from G-d) with three interesting ideas.  #1.  Is a Transgression of the Law.  #2 Changing the ordinances and #3 breaking the everlasting covenant.  Most people think of apostasy or heresy as a corruption of doctrine.  I find it interesting that “doctrine” did not even make Isaiah’s “A” list of what constitutes apostasy and heresy.   I am not going to teach it as gospel doctrine but I personally believe that it is possible to fall into apostasy without turning to false doctrine.  Rather, I believe false doctrine is created by apostasy or heresy as a means of justification for the real or defining problem that involves much more than the elements of false doctrine. 

I think it is also interesting that when Jesus spoke of identifying his disciples he did not recommend a critical look at their doctrine but rather if they “love” one another – behavior centered rather than theologically based in ideas.  We can further discover this is not love according to modern definitions but more in accordance with the ancient use of the term “Charity” or the divine love G-d has for mankind.  In other words, that they take upon themselves the most noble characteristic of G-d.

 

The Traveler