liz3564 wrote: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?
The Gnostic doctrine was not born out of Christianity. It had existed for a time before Christianity came along; it was just taken over when it found a better vehicle for promulgation. D&C 91 makes it clear what our position ought to be on apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature. Most respectable LDS scholars recognize that whatever correlations may exist at best represent a perversion of a more esoteric early Christian tradition that has been restored, but more likely represent only coincidental similarities and the occasional correlation that comes as a result of the near comprehensive diffusioin of religious thought throughout the Ancient Near East. I've written a paper for the BYU Student Symposium that outlines why caution needs to be taken in pointing to early Christian doctrines as proto-Mormon. Pre-existence is one of my main points. The Gnostics and Origen and Clement of Alexandria espouse this doctrine, but it is wholesale adoption of Plato, so arguing that they represent now lost doctrines is counterproductive to our cause. One doctrine, however, that I do show to operate independent of outside influence (especially Platonic) is that of creatio ex materia. Many professors at BYU enjoy reading certain Gnostic gospels (specifically that of Philip), but they know where to draw the line. Professors Strathearn and Ricks often mention Philip as an example of the accuracy with which Joseph Smith's doctrines restored then unknown Semitic thought.
The manner in which the canon was established is a fascinating research project. There were criteria set that all candidates had to meet in order to qualify as scripture, and certain doctrines automatically disqualified many gospels.
Is your paper published somewhere online? I would be interested in reading it, if you care to provide a link.
Many professors at BYU enjoy reading certain Gnostic gospels (specifically that of Philip), but they know where to draw the line. Professors Strathearn and Ricks often mention Philip as an example of the accuracy with which Joseph Smith's doctrines restored then unknown Semitic thought.
I'm curious about your statement here. What do you mean by "they know where to draw the line"?
Do these professors feel that the Gospel of Phillip is legitimate or not? Have they said anything in particular about the Gospel of Mary Magdeline?
If these are not legitimate accounts, where did they come from? Who made them up?
I don't know a lot about the Gnostic Gospels, but find the subject fascinating. Sorry if I'm asking too many questions here. ;)
Is your paper published somewhere online? I would be interested in reading it, if you care to provide a link.
Many professors at BYU enjoy reading certain Gnostic gospels (specifically that of Philip), but they know where to draw the line. Professors Strathearn and Ricks often mention Philip as an example of the accuracy with which Joseph Smith's doctrines restored then unknown Semitic thought.
I'm curious about your statement here. What do you mean by "they know where to draw the line"?
Do these professors feel that the Gospel of Phillip is legitimate or not? Have they said anything in particular about the Gospel of Mary Magdeline?
If these are not legitimate accounts, where did they come from? Who made them up?
I don't know a lot about the Gnostic Gospels, but find the subject fascinating. Sorry if I'm asking too many questions here. ;)
My paper is being reviewed right now, and I don't know if it will end up online, but perhaps I can post it if enough people are interested in reading it. I still have some editing I'd like to do, though.
All Gnostic gospels are heavy, heavy corruptions of true dotrine, in our eyes. Gnosticism is kind of an offspring of Neo-platonism and Alexandrian Christianity. They teach that Jehovah is an impotent demigod, named Yaltabaoth, that created the earth. Another god gives his creations a soul that operates relatively independent of Yaltabaoth's corrupt material earth. These souls are either free or not of Yaltabaoth's power, with knowledge of secret mysteries being the indicator. This gospel was preached heavily from Egypt. The gnostic drive to write down their stories is what catalyzed the canonization of the Bible. Until the Gnostics started providing texts, most believe all the gospels were orally transmitted.
Our scholars draw the line at appreciating the window that their texts give us into the nature of early Christian practices and believing they hold any truth that is otherwise unavailable to us. I state in my paper that professors and church leaders alike have stated that there's nothing we can find in those texts that will at all aid us in our pursuit of eternal life. At best they give us better understanding of the past, but the requirements for salvation are already published in our standard works.
Enuma Elish wrote: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.
My paper is being reviewed right now, and I don't know if it will end up online, but perhaps I can post it if enough people are interested in reading it. I still have some editing I'd like to do, though.
All Gnostic gospels are heavy, heavy corruptions of true dotrine, in our eyes. Gnosticism is kind of an offspring of Neo-platonism and Alexandrian Christianity. They teach that Jehovah is an impotent demigod, named Yaltabaoth, that created the earth. Another god gives his creations a soul that operates relatively independent of Yaltabaoth's corrupt material earth. These souls are either free or not of Yaltabaoth's power, with knowledge of secret mysteries being the indicator. This gospel was preached heavily from Egypt. The gnostic drive to write down their stories is what catalyzed the canonization of the Bible. Until the Gnostics started providing texts, most believe all the gospels were orally transmitted.
Our scholars draw the line at appreciating the window that their texts give us into the nature of early Christian practices and believing they hold any truth that is otherwise unavailable to us. I state in my paper that professors and church leaders alike have stated that there's nothing we can find in those texts that will at all aid us in our pursuit of eternal life. At best they give us better understanding of the past, but the requirements for salvation are already published in our standard works.
I would enjoy reading it, Mak.
Do the Church scholars feel that any of these works, like the Gospel of Phillip, or the Gospel of Mary Magdeline, for example, were actually written by these people? Or do they feel that these writings were transcribed by someone during a later period who received the information orally, and that's why some of the facts can't be trusted?
liz3564 wrote:Do the Church scholars feel that any of these works, like the Gospel of Phillip, or the Gospel of Mary Magdeline, for example, were actually written by these people? Or do they feel that these writings were transcribed by someone during a later period who received the information orally, and that's why some of the facts can't be trusted?
We can't really take any of the specific events from those gospels seriously, and we especially cannot take their authorship seriously. There is one that tells the story of Christ's youth, in which he kills other children and laughs at others for their weaknesses. He laughs at people throughout the Gnostic gospels, actually. They're pure and simple fiction, but the principles they expose are important to our understanding of the nature of religious thought back then. Philip, for example, tells us about sacred marriage. This idea is being found more and more in ancient sources, so it helps us to know that Joseph Smith's ideas of eternal marriage are actually closer to ancient ideas than anyone ever knew. This is where we as LDS students of these texts find value.
maklelan wrote:We can't really take any of the specific events from those gospels seriously, and we especially cannot take their authorship seriously. There is one that tells the story of Christ's youth, in which he kills other children and laughs at others for their weaknesses. He laughs at people throughout the Gnostic gospels, actually. They're pure and simple fiction, but the principles they expose are important to our understanding of the nature of religious thought back then. Philip, for example, tells us about sacred marriage. This idea is being found more and more in ancient sources, so it helps us to know that Joseph Smith's ideas of eternal marriage are actually closer to ancient ideas than anyone ever knew. This is where we as LDS students of these texts find value.
Sorry for butting in here (and sorry that I know absolutely nothing on this subject) but how can you say that they're absolute fiction on one hand, and then on the other hand say that these same texts provide evidence that Joseph Smith's ideas are 'closer to ancient ideas than anyone ever knew'?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:Sorry for butting in here (and sorry that I know absolutely nothing on this subject) but how can you say that they're absolute fiction on one hand, and then on the other hand say that these same texts provide evidence that Joseph Smith's ideas are 'closer to ancient ideas than anyone ever knew'?
We can say with a fair level of confidence that Jesus did not use his powers to kill other children, and that he did not laugh in his apostles' faces when they asked him about being saved. From the fact that Gnosticism was around independent of Christianity for a long time, along with many of the stories incorporated into the Christianized texts, we know that they are fiction. My example about Joseph Smith's ideas about marriage comes from discovering that the idea of being sealed to one's family for all eternity is found in ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts and the Book of the Dead, and that eternal marriage was also a doctrine in Egypt, in Gnosticism and in other Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Are they exactly the same? No, but when Joseph Smith purports to be restoring to earth a completely unique doctrine that purports to have come from the Ancient Near East, and we discover a century later that these unique doctrines pop up within the Ancient Near East, and especially in esoteric Christian sects, it supports the idea that his ideas are not the product of his imagination, but are intimately related to ancient religious thought. I know that the Enuma Elish is not at all historical, but from it I can garnish many, many facts about the nature of their politics and religion. If I'm trying to show that ideas were similar to certain ideas today, I don't need historicity at all.
liz3564 wrote:Do the Church scholars feel that any of these works, like the Gospel of Phillip, or the Gospel of Mary Magdeline, for example, were actually written by these people? Or do they feel that these writings were transcribed by someone during a later period who received the information orally, and that's why some of the facts can't be trusted?
We can't really take any of the specific events from those gospels seriously, and we especially cannot take their authorship seriously. There is one that tells the story of Christ's youth, in which he kills other children and laughs at others for their weaknesses. He laughs at people throughout the Gnostic gospels, actually. They're pure and simple fiction, but the principles they expose are important to our understanding of the nature of religious thought back then. Philip, for example, tells us about sacred marriage. This idea is being found more and more in ancient sources, so it helps us to know that Joseph Smith's ideas of eternal marriage are actually closer to ancient ideas than anyone ever knew. This is where we as LDS students of these texts find value.
So....in your view...are the gospels which are included in the New Testament fact or principled fiction?
Here are the very beginning of the exchanges that led to the eventual transfer of posts to create this new thread. I'm including them here because I need to see it all laid out.
Vegas: I think what is even more offensive is the fact Mormons believe themselves to be the culmination of the jewish faith.
And I am speaking as a Jew.
EE: Which Jewish faith do Mormons believe they culminate?
Vegas: Their understanding of the jewish faith does not extend that far, thus they believe to be just "post-jews".
I believe FARMS leans toward Qumran but the "common folk" just say "the jews".
Sidenote: On several occasions I heard from the pulpit individuals state the holocaust was for killing Jesus. Connected to the fact there are many jewish faiths, this is troubling for this view as it was all jews in Germany, etc that were subject to the evil Genocide.