Talk:Gnosticism in modern times

Proposed Overhaul
This article doesn't cohere very well and there are obvious inaccuracies and unreliable citations. I suggest subdividing the article by century, with 19th, 20th, and 21st century arrangement. With an historical preface that takes readers from entries such as the Cathars, the Bosnian Church, and pre/early modern esoteric movements to the 19th century. Currently, the only mention prior to the 19th century is William Blake, who could be added to such a preface.

These sections would provide an historical context for the modern entries in the Gnosticism section and refer to those articles. I do not know the value of the hodge-podge list of Gnostic groups under the Modern Gnostic revivals section. Ideally, such a list would link to individual articles. The mysticism section does not seem to fit in this article, though the individual cited could be mentioned in the appropriate century section.

Thoughts?

Metagignosko (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea to subdivide it, I think. The 19th Century contributions could be expanded, especially in regards to G.R.S Mead, who did write a number of books and, although he was not an associate, did influence Carl Jung via the Pistis Sophia translation.  Father.rassbach (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Subdivision into 'Late 19th - Early 20th Centuries', 'Second half of the 20th Century', and 'Early 21st Century' is proposed. The names can be changed but these divisions mark the availability and popularization of source materials with resulting waves of influence on the world at large. Metagignosko (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with "subdividing the article by century, with 19th, 20th, and 21st century arrangement." I'm in the process of tweaking my entry on 'The Theater and its Gnostic Double' for inclusion under 21st century Gnosticism. I'm corresponding with the author now.
 * Under the 21st century subdivision I would also include the works of Timothy Freke and Peter Ghandi but I'm not familiar enough with all their writings to provide an accurate summary. Can anyone help? Zoso88 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

More articles
I am going to write more articles on this subject, they will have also references and links to books that can be found at Amazon.com.

Skysurfer

Here's the link to it, now named ' (the most appropriate title)

I agree it's impractical to include all self-identifying gnostic groups in this article. It seems unfair though to cite sources on gnosticism like Eric Voegelin, David Icke, or references to The Matrix without including individuals and groups who have a far more articulated, explicitly gnostic viewpoint, and make a valuable contribution to its understanding, and therefore merit more attention. I obtained a wealth of information from this site on modern Gnosticism and think it should be included on this page:

The Theater And Its Gnostic Double.

There seems to be a dearth of information on modern Gnosticism. This article is already quite clipped and could be improved by including more viewpoints.

Modern Gnostic Mysticism section doesn't seem accurate
Section entitled 'Modern Gnostic Mysticism' does not really detail mysticism. If it concerns beliefs and scholarly analysis and interpretation of older Gnostic document. Can we do a 'Revival of Gnosticism' or 'Gnostic Schools/Systems Originating from Scholarly Research' instead? Mysticism has been defined as "a religion based on mystical communion with an ultimate reality" or "Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God". Shouldn't we discuss Mysticism proper and not hypothesis or scholarly analysis/interpretation or dogma?

Scientology
In the article on Scientology, look under "Scientology and other religions", it says:


 * "The Roman Catholic Church has not made official doctrinal pronouncements specifically related to Scientology. The Catholic Church has refused to recognise Scientology weddings as valid. Certain beliefs that are widely associated with Scientology, such as reincarnation, are specifically rejected by the Catholic Church as being incompatible with Catholic belief and practice. Scientology is also, according to a number of religious scholars, a form of gnosticism, which would make it hard to reconcile with Roman Catholicism and other denominations that regard gnosticism as a heresy.(ref)(/ref)"

I know only a little about Scientology or Gnosticism but it does seem to me that they have some things in common. Is there a problem with mentioning this in the article? Maybe only as one person's opinion? Steve Dufour 05:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would be problematic, unless a reliable source is to be found. I've never ever heard of the idea. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am against including groups that are merely characterized as either gnostic or a form of gnosticism. While such characterizations may have some genuine utility on occasion, they are more often of a polemical nature, and/or make use of a polemical characterization of gnosticism. This would also expand the scope of this article beyond the scope of gnosticism in modern times, or indeed any coherence. Metagignosko (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

- The attached piece on the Gnostics is clearly written as a subtle hit piece; perhaps by a Catholic.

Is Wikipedia a Cathlolic organization? What difference does it make that the Pope, head of the church of ROMA does not agree with them or one of their philosohpies? (e.g. The philosophy that presents our relationship with G-d is personal not requiring a church.)

While the discomfort this gives a huge CHURCH organization such as his is obvious, it's astonishing that supposedly neutral site ;) as Wiki would essentially lend themselves, however subtley, to the Church of Roma.

Anyone researching this should be sure to check out the Christian Gnostics, specifically, one sect called the Cathars. See Google books for "Gold of the Gods" for an interestsing account of just how Christian the church of ROMA was when it came to those groups like the Cathars of France that were labeled as 'heretics' by Pope 'Innocent'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.164.23 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Too much Voegelin!
I think the fuzzy section on Voegelin is far too long. His analysis is fuzzy and far from relevant since it bunches everything detestable (acc2 him) into one heap and then he, like an illusionist slips the detestability label of "gnosticism" from his sleeve, on that dung heap and screams "Voilá!" like a madman. Besides he has a whole article on his own, so his thinking could be rationalized down to what is relevant for modern "gnosticism". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And "totalitarian" applied onto religious anarchists... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I read a dissertation that had a well researched section on Voegelin's use of "gnosticism" as a metaphor that he later abandoned. I will try find it again and rewrite this section. Metagignosko (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Voegelin subsection was rewritten. However, it should be combined with the René Guénon section into a section titled something like "Attacks on Modernity using Gnosticism." There were a few more than Voegelin and Guénon but I doubt they meet notability standards. Metagignosko (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

biased sources
This article is not NPOV, a cabal of editors have made the article into a walled garden. I agree with Metagignosko that it is a bad idea to include groups which are merely characterized as "gnostic" by others, and Voegelin's article is rightly limited. However, this article is extremely biased to a particular minority school of what makes modern Gnosticism, namely the French, British and American occultist groups that evolved from Blavatsky and then Doinel. This article completely neglects the Gnostic group of Samael Aun Weor, whose membership dwarfs the Doinel groups, neglects Sylvia Browne and her Gnostic church, it neglects SUMMUM from Utah. If I were to wager a guess, this article is primarily authored by a member of the Ecclesia Gnostica, a group mentioned in the article, as it seems to conform to their official narrative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimonster007 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but perhaps for the lack of interest from the editors, and also the scarcity of information. F.ex. see Mark H Pritchard in Beelzebub (disambiguation), a drop-off from some Samaelians. I'll add a few links to Gnostic Association of Anthropological, Cultural and Scientific Studies and Samael Aun Weor. There's a lot of fringe calling themselves "gnostic", so maybe they don't belong to here, but maybe they do. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect about a "bias" keeping out late 20th or 21st century organizations that identify as gnostic. As you really should have noticed before calling it biased, the article is structured as an historical account. It has not been expanded beyond the mid twentieth century. Unless anachronism is a bias in history, there is no bias. The article can be updated through the end of the 20th century, however, to account for all of the self-identified gnostic groups arising after the cultural forces stirring around the Da Vinci Code novel and film would be impractical in this format. Before it was structured historically, it was a disorganized list of individuals and an external link list.

The history of Victor Rodriguez (aka Samael Aun Weor) is worth including as a continuation of the sex magic line. He actually distanced his teaching from historical gnosticism as he taught a "new gnosis," which is the teaching of the "Arcanum AZF" (sex magic without male ejaculation. He wrote his first book El Matrimonio Perfecto ('the Perfect Matrimony') in 1950. Sylvia Browne as a church founder is a 21st century phenomenon. Metagignosko (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Assembly of Good Christians
This article should also discuss the so-called "Assembly of Good Christians" and their website www.cathar.net. Although, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I imagine that their absence from this article may be intentional on their part, despite the fact that their PR arm seems to pop up on every website or blog critical of Gnosticism.162.90.144.23 (talk)


 * http://www.cathar.net is currently an advertizing site. I knew of modern "cathars" but I cannot find them on the web. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sucks... but...
1) This article sucks. It is undercited, oblique, vague, incomplete and very sloppy by wikipedia standards. 2) That said, I would think editors should consider including stuff on the connections scholars such as Alain Besançon trace between Gnosis and modern ideology, starting with everyone's favorite guy Hegel, and going down to Leninism and 'em guys. Think about it, it's interesting stuff. Dahn (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Church of St Mary & St John
Greetings! There's been recently a section about "The Church of St Mary & St John" added by an IP editor, and later got restored by another IP editor and user Hegel Eagle. The Hegel Eagle account seems to have been created only three days after I reverted the very additions by IP 86.167.112.236, and so far he has only four edits on his account, all in Gnosticism in modern times'.

The source for the first paragraph is the organization's very own website, and therefore doesn't meet the notability criteria. The second paragraph is sourced by a book called The Secrets of the Serpent Bloodline, authored by the very founder of the organization. Wikipedia is not the venue for promoting one's book, and what doesn't meet notability, Wikipedia shouldn't include either. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not Book Promotion
@Jayaguru-Shishya: This section was not added by the author of the book. The site and book were cited as sources for the information provided, not for promotional purposes. There is also an Altar book that has not been cited, which would have been if promotion were the goal. The author doesn't need Wikipedia to promote her work. She has been invited to speak as a guest on R.O.A.M. Radio 11-24-2013 and The Psychic Connection. Both of those are non-affiliated third parties that approached Tau Tia L Douglass of their own accord after she created a video to announce her book publication. This Church deserves mention as a Gnostic organization in modern times. --Elabeth (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think those radio shows make her a valid source. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The name of the church is difficult to google because a lot of unrelated content shows up, is there any way you could help us find an independent reliable source that talks about this church? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking into this further for more independent sources. There is an article that was published in The Chorley Guardian on May 6, 2012, but due to the age, it has been put into the newspaper archives at their physical location and not stored online on other than the Church's own site. I'm linking it here just to show the clipping: http://churchsmsj.org/html/May2012.htm --Elabeth (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thing that I would like to note about this is that the original entry was added on Nov. 2, 2013, not February 13, 2015. I am responsible for adding it in the first place, but am not the author of the book as was presumed. --Elabeth (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well now we know this organization exists. But I don't think having this info warrants giving an entire section/two paragraphs of text to the org, especially with wild claims like "The Church of St Mary & St John ... are based on ancient teachings passed through a hereditary tradition" and "... also claims lineages through Mary Magdalene and John The Baptist, from a surviving bloodline tradition which predates the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as Eastern religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism." And the second paragraph is a little too enthusiastic; it should be written in a more neutral and understandable manner. If we're going to mention it in the article at all. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be toned/trimmed down and have unverifiable claims omitted. Should a rewrite be posted here or somewhere else first? --Elabeth (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeraphine Gryphon. Elabeth, you may want to familiarize yourself with WP:UGC and WP:OR. Anyway, you said that "I am responsible for adding it in the first place...". What do you exactly mean by this responsibility? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jayaguru-Shishya, I have been discussing this matter here in the spirit of cooperation rather than engaging in an edit war. As for the meaning of responsibility - it is very clearly a matter of owning my actions/edits and correcting the arrogant, condescending (and mistaken) assumption that the section was added by the author to promote her book. If you dig further back in the page's history or simply click on the [1] in that very same comment from which you quoted, you will see that this section was, in fact, originally (meaning "first") added by me on Nov 2, 2013...where it sat undisturbed for a little over a year, until recently. Now since this is turning into one problem after another and it seems like you're looking for any excuse to exclude this entry, you can keep Wikipedia. --Elabeth (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Early to mid 20th Century: French Gnostic Church
According to fr.wikipédia, l'Eglise gnostique apostolique ceased activity by the end-70ies [with souce].

Nuremberg / BAVARIA - Ángel.García2001 84.138.71.192 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section Suggestion
The popular culture section on this page is very vague and seems to add nothing to the article. "These pop culture stories/games/etc. contain gnostic references" adds nothing of value to the page content itself. I propose deletion if substantial notability cannot be shown. Khalfani Khaldun  17:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's worth keeping. I found it useful, and so will other readers. Florificapis (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - the vague and unreferenced items could be cleared as too tenuous to be meaninful - such as "strongly resemble one known from the Gnostic cosmogony", "borrows Gnostic themes", "uses many Gnostic terms and themes" - because David Icke used the term "Archon" does not establish a link to Gnosticism - this is more random association than meaningful linking - see WP:NOTEVERYTHING - "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details", "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful" - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Epinoia (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even with the form of a short list, I found this section very helpful and informative. I think it even should be expanded by more elements Pmartinolli (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just expanded with popular movies such as Star Wars, Harry Potter and The Matrix Mcvti (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Gnosticism does not equal dualism. Gnostics are/were Christian. While Star Wars, Harry Potter and The Matrix may have dualistic qualities, they are not fundamentally Christian and so to call them Gnostic is a misapplication of the term and ignores an essential aspect of Gnosticism. Epinoia (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree, Mandaeism and Manichaeism are Gnostic religions and are not Christian. Mcvti (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - even so, you would not call Star Wars, Harry Potter and The Matrix Mandaeism or Manichaeism or Zoroastrianism based solely on dualism. - Epinoia (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - also, Manichaeism is not Gnostic as it is not based on secret knowledge. Although based on local Mesopotamian religious movements and Gnosticism, nowhere in the Manichaeism article does it say that it is a Gnostic religion (except in the sidebar which is editor created) - Epinoia (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From Encyclopedia Britannica: "At its core, Manichaeism was a type of Gnosticism—a dualistic religion that offered salvation through special knowledge (gnosis) of spiritual truth. Like all forms of Gnosticism, Manichaeism taught that life in this world is unbearably painful and radically evil." Manichaeism is definitely Gnostic and the movies are good examples of Gnostic concepts in popular culture. Mcvti (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - notice that the Britannica article says "a type of Gnosticism", not that Manichaeism was fully Gnostic - it was based on Gnosticism, but the teachings of Mani are different from most Gnostic sects - but as noted, you would not characterize Star Wars, Harry Potter and The Matrix as Mandaeism or Manichaeism or Zoroastrianism, so it is a misapplication of the term to characterize them as Gnosticsm - Epinoia (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * disagree, its a type of Gnosticism because there are other Gnostic religions, it is not the only one (Manichaeism). The reference I added considers the movies showing Gnostic concepts and mentions secret knowledge, dualism etc. Mcvti (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - yes, but is "Father Alfonso" a reliable source? - Epinoia (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - the lengthy article is posted on the Catholic Education Resource Center and the author teaches philosophy at a university. Mcvti (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep.  I agree with expanding it. Zoso88 (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)