DiscussMormonism.com

Consiglieri, I have short time at moment (lunch) so short reply.
Jesus explained the parable, we read the explanation in the gospel. It is not kept hidden
Paul explains what he means with mystery it was hidden from our knowledge before the death and resurrection of Christ but not hidden after.
The gnostics had whole hidden systems. We have records found of their mysteries so they are not hidden either.
The Catholic church has continuous maintenance of what was in tradition.

I suppose what if never ends

MCB wrote: They have been found. They do not significantly resemble Mormonism. And some went out Way too far. Much like Mormonism.

I find a number of contacts between Mormonism and Christian Gnosticism, not the least of which is the fundamental reliance on "knowledge" for salvation.

Here, Joseph Smith's statement comes to mind, "A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

huckelberry wrote:Consiglieri, I have short time at moment (lunch) so short reply.
Jesus explained the parable, we read the explanation in the gospel. It is not kept hidden.

And yet early Christian leaders thought more was revealed in the parable of the sower than Jesus explained in the gospel.

For instance, Irenaeus taught that the three categories in the parable of those who produce thirty-fold, those who produce sixty-fold and those who produce one hundred fold were meant to indicate three eternal locations of glory:

And as the presbyters say, Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy. [They say, moreover], that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold: for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, the last will inhabit the city; and that was on this account the Lord declared, "In My Father's house are many mansions." . . . The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, affirm that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; also that they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the Apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."


Irenaeus, Against Heresies , 5:36:1-2, in ANF 1:567, brackets in original.

Clement of Alexandra expressed the same sentiment:

Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed . . . . These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel--the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to "a perfect man," according to the image of the Lord . . . . To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:14, in ANF 2:506.

Whatever we make of these quotations, it seems clear that more than one early Christian leader saw no difficulty in interpreting the parable of the sower beyond the meaning divulged in the gospel.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

.

Consiglieri ~ On the other hand, I believe there is a substantial body of literature indicating that early Christianity, like many other religions, contained both an exoteric as well as an esoteric component to its teachings.

Which parts of early Christianity, Consiglieri? I don't believe "early Christianity" was a monolithic entity. It was all over the map on a lot of issues. And what standard is being used to determine that these pro-esoteric-teaching Christians were in the right?

You say later on that early Gnostic Christianity bore a striking resemblance to Mormonism in some ways. I completely agree. You think this is a good thing? Irenaeus (whom you later quote) denounced the Gnostics for their claims to a secret, hidden tradition and their insistence that the text of Scripture was too ambiguous thus requiring a viva voce (living voice) to interpret it properly. Was Irenaeus wrong about the Gnostics? How do you know?

I agree that the ECFs often interpreted and expounded on Scriptures in ways that went beyond strict exegesis. In fact, you don't even have to go to the ECFs for that. New Testament writers interpreted and used Old Testament writings in ways that a straight exegesis of those writings never would have yielded. Eisegesis in itself isn't necessarily wrong; it all comes down to what reason we have to trust the one who's doing the eisegesis.

I have very little reason to trust the LDS church's take on "milk before meat." A Jew might similarly plead that he (or she) rejects the Christian take on Isaiah 7:14. All fair in my book.

Incidentally, I don't trust Clement and Irenaeus on Matthew, either. Fact is, the ECFs weren't always right.

Consiglieri, I would not at all wish to view scripture as lacking in mystery. I would also view it as just plain silly to try to imagine all knowledge was to be found there in a simple reading (or allegorical amplification for that matter) There is plenty of room for learning.

I could consider the mystery, Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery brothers so that you may not be conceited, Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. etc. This is a rich and important mystery which I realize that I have not way of completely understanding. Yet I think it is clear some pretty clear part of it has been forgotten at times in Christian history when Christian conceit filled and boiled over in great harm to Jews. But this is a problem of people neglecting to consider what is not at all hidden but stated plainly.

You made the proposal that the early Christian church had esoteric doctrine and exoteric and the former was lost leaving only the exterior.

I think this is way off base. I think the most valuable stuff is well preserved. Certainly there is information about the words of the early church which is lost. Why not? I realize that compared to gnostic teaching my view is based in part on a passionate and partisan belief on my part. It is the Catholic doctrine I love. I consider the gnostic to be chaff. It is what is clear in the New Testament which make Christianity of any value. The gnostic was lost largely because it contributed nothing of value, except perhaps an opportunity to feel better than the average Christian.

I notice that you reference so quotes to interpretations of the parable which have some similarity to an LDS doctrine. I think the most relevant reply is that the comments you reference are not esoteric but plain parts of the Catholic tradition. (A body of tradition quite self aware enough to know what it taught in the early centuries) It is true that not all comments and interpretations found in that tradition are considered as settled doctrine. The example you site is not to my understanding. Still it is not lost or hidden. Like any number of allegorical expansions of scripture, of which early Christian writers were fond,it is there for consideration if you wish.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote:You say later on that early Gnostic Christianity bore a striking resemblance to Mormonism in some ways. I completely agree. You think this is a good thing? Irenaeus (whom you later quote) denounced the Gnostics for their claims to a secret, hidden tradition and their insistence that the text of Scripture was too ambiguous thus requiring a viva voce (living voice) to interpret it properly. Was Irenaeus wrong about the Gnostics? How do you know?

Ah, the imponderables of a multifarious Early Christianity/ies.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote:Incidentally, I don't trust Clement and Irenaeus on Matthew, either. Fact is, the ECFs weren't always right.

Which can often be used to say, "they had it wrong, but, boy, we got it right." And so the wheel keeps on spinning. This is the lovely thing about Protestantism, and its weakness. Once tradition is thrown out, almost any answer can replace it, including the one that the whole mess is a pile of nonsense. After all, the text does not interpret itself.

.

Trevor wrote:Which can often be used to say, "they had it wrong, but, boy, we got it right." And so the wheel keeps on spinning. This is the lovely thing about Protestantism, and its weakness. Once tradition is thrown out, almost any answer can replace it, including the one that the whole mess is a pile of nonsense. After all, the text does not interpret itself.

Protestantism doesn't throw out tradition. It's considered authoritative-but-fallible.

Kind of like everything in Mormonism.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote:Protestantism doesn't throw out tradition. It's considered authoritative-but-fallible.

Kind of like everything in Mormonism.

No need to make it a contest between Protestantism and Mormonism with me, if that is what you were getting at. It is not entirely clear where you were going there.

Sorry for the exaggeration. Compared with Catholicism and Orthodoxy, however, the place of tradition is comparatively negligible in Protestantism.