Does the LDS church have an official or unofficial stance on the gnostic gospels?

Question

I've been reading a lot recently about the gnostic gospels - ie the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas etc, and I was wondering if anyone knew whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has any kind of stance on the legitimacy or doctrinal accuracy of these texts? The same question I suppose applies to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other recently discovered ancient apocryphal manuscripts...

I'd like links to sources for any responses.

I'm aware of the church's stance on the standard "apocrypha" that existed in Joseph Smith's time, however I'm curious whether recent discoveries fall into the same category or whether the church has officially acknowledged them at all.

I've heard a lot of support from members regarding the scholarly importance of ie the Dead Sea Scrolls, but nothing in terms of a church-wide statement or opinion, especially regarding their doctrinal importance (or possible lack thereof).

Right now my study of the gnostic gospels is purely intellectual - my own weak attempts at pseudo-scholarship. My approach to reading them has two forms: A) spiritual fiction and B) anthropological value.

However were the church to acknowledge these texts as apocryphal, it would imply that, while at least partially fictitious, there are some spiritual truths to be gained and I would amend my study habits with prayer and meditation in the pursuit of those truths.

For example you wouldn't pray and fast before reading Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites, but you might before reading the books of Enoch or Maccabees.

Answer 1

I don't think the church has come out with an official statement on any of the apocrypha or gnostic writings. I had a Gospel Doctrine teacher last year that quoted from Josephus several times, and mentioned that he was reading from the Gospel of Judas once. He was a REALLY good Gospel Doctrine teacher, and when he used the writings of Josephus it was as supplemental material. No one seemed to mind including the Bishop, Stake President Counselor, Mission President, and Temple President, and at least three former Bishops and one former Stake President. He was a Bishop himself and was released to be the Branch President of a student/Young Single Adult Branch. So I guess unofficially, at least in my ward, it's ok to use them as supportive/supplemental material as long as they aren't the focus or primary source of material and it's understood by those being taught that it does not hold the weight/authority as the scriptures but can provide interesting anecdotal possibilities.

Answer 2

I'll find some links in a minute. Joseph Smith wrote specifically about the Apocrypha, saying that much of it was true, much was false, but as a whole nothing in there was necessary for the salvation of mankind because it was all covered elsewhere.

He also stated that any worthy member with the gift of the spirit would be able to read it and know, through the spirit, which parts were true and which were not.

I know this is covered in the LDS scripture known as The Doctrine and Covenants, which I'm sure you can find online.

Answer 3

Go to the LDS church web page and peruse your question for any official stance. You are young so I will give you a few nuggets of golden wisdom to enhance your horizons. If it wasn't for women I doubt there would be any organized religions of any kind; they need something to sort of keep men in line. Documents and information from prior ages is just like the here and now; we have the internet and a quadzillion bits of information which you have to search through and digest to get the three per cent pure gold nugget that is worth worrying about. The lost books of the bible are not really lost; the bible as we know it was compiled at the order of King James. All the various books and texts and yada were examined and those making the final cut were included in the bible. There was a lot of duplicate information that was not included as it would have made it so big and thick you would need a forklift to move it. The non-included texts said the same thing from the viewpoint of another person seeing it; sort of like if you and I and seven other people see a car drive off a bridge into the river. We would each one write down what we saw; a car driving off a bridge into the river; why would you want nine exact duplicates of the same information in a book?

Answer 4

they reason the church is working against a country wide law that would allow same sex couples to marry in the same way a traditional couple would isn't because we are anti gay- but that we are pro marriage. the church never involves itself in political things, but this is not political- this particular law, and the underlining things that it will allow and ban are a direct infringement on our religious rights. to understand why we feel so strongly about marriage being between a man and a woman- i would direct you to the link and the proclamation to the world issued in the early 90's. as far as the churches stance on the actual act or feelings of homosexuality is that they are sons and daughters of God and should be treated as such. they should be loved and respected and not to be treated as anything less. those that have these feelings and tendency's are still able to be active members of the church and are fully fellow shipped as long as their feelings don't turn in to action. those that act upon it in most cases (if they are planning on continuing those actions) are excommunicated, but are still welcome at church. they just can't hold any callings and i think they can't take sacrament- but i might be wrong on that. we are taught to love and be tolerant of all people of all walks of life. our stance on marriage has nothing to do with personal feelings toward same sex couples- but rather the protection of traditional marriage. we just don't want the fall out that comes with this law- because it's us giving up our rights as well. the church would take no stance on it, if the "marriage" was a different marriage and didn't have the same fall out as this law would have. hope that helps...i'm looking for that link....

Answer 5

I don't think they can ever be a part of the canon of scripture. To be frank, there are portions of discoveries like the Nag Hammadi that support church doctrine and portions that don't. The writers probably can't be considered 'inspired' as those of the New Testament are. They give us a precious gift to know what practices were a part of a portion of the early church that were discarded when it became a political instituion.

Answer 6

Do a search on www.lds.org of gnostic gosepls and mark e. peterson. He gave a talk in which he mentioned that the gnostic gospels were scripture mixed with greek philosophy and therefore are not scripture. That's just one talk though. I couldn't find any official doctrine. It does make for fascinating reading.

Answer 7

I read something recently that actually said that the Gospel of Judas was false, but don't remember where I read it. I don't know anything about the Gospel of Thomas, never heard of it. As far as the Church's stance, they have said nothing at this time. If these gospels are proven to be authoritative, the Church would be open to them.

"It has been the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the Apocrypha are not scripture, but that they may be of value if read with the Spirit. One who studies the gospel aided by the Spirit is equipped to discern truth from error in the Apocrypha." (Dec. 1982 Ensign)

The Church does recognize the Dead Sea Scrolls, and BYU has been assisting in translating them. I believe they have even created a special computer program to aid in the research. I haven't researched this recently, but this is what I recall reading some time ago.

I found this article from a Dec. 1995 issue of the Church News:

"In conjunction with the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation of Jerusalem, Brigham Young University and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.) at BYU recently unveiled a working version of a comprehensive CD-ROM database of the scrolls at the Judaean Desert Scrolls Conference held at the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. The conference featured research papers by several prominent Dead Sea Scroll scholars, including Emmanuel Tov, head of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project in Jerusalem, and BYU professors Dana M. Pike, David R. Seely, and Donald W. Parry, who have been translating portions of the scrolls since last year.

“The scholars at the conference were quite supportive of our efforts,” says Brother Parry, who demonstrated the database at the conference along with Steven W. Booras, director of special projects for F.A.R.M.S., a nonprofit education corporation headquartered at BYU and dedicated to the study of ancient scripture. “They are very happy that they will have at their fingertips materials which before were available only by thumbing through dozens of volumes of texts.”

"The Dead Sea Scrolls database, which BYU and F.A.R.M.S. have been working on since 1993 and hope to make available to scholars and the public within a year, allows users to display graphic images of scrolls and scroll fragments, to simultaneously access Hebrew texts and accompanying translations, and to magnify scroll writings. The database also allows users to enhance the resolution of pictures of scrolls and scroll fragments, which number in the hundreds and thousands, respectively, and to conduct almost instantaneous word comparisons and searches.

"The database, which will be demonstrated again this November at an American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature conference in Philadelphia, contains commentaries, journal articles, bibliographies, a concordance of scholarly works on the scrolls, and comprehensive concordance of the scrolls in Hebrew, Aramaic, and English.

"Other materials that may be included on the finished database include Greek and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, the Greek New Testament, apocryphal and rabbinic writings, and the writings of hellenized Jewry."

Answer 8

I agree with czek... Where those writings weren't included in the Holy Bible (KJV) and Joseph didn't really encourage the Saints to read them, I'm not too worried that I'll miss something vital to my salvation.

Yes, they are an interesting read, and with the Holy Spirit as a guide (hymn #143 is now running through my head), one would be able to glean truth from them.

Answer 9

To my knowledge, there is no official stand concerning these books. Currently they are not considered to be gospel or scripture.

Answer 10

1