Jump to content
snowflake

Why isn't the Book of Enoch accepted in the LDS canon?

Recommended Posts

D&C 107

53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.

54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.

56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.

57 These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.

 

First question: Why isn't the book of Enoch recognized in the LDS canon?

Question 2: The valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman is in Missouri, why is all of the supporting evidence (manuscripts) for the Book of Enoch from the old world? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Question 2: The valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman is in Missouri, why is all of the supporting evidence (manuscripts) for the Book of Enoch from the old world? 

Because when the Book of Enoch was written Missouri was in the old world when all the land was together. Afterwards the land was divided (Gen 10: 25)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, snowflake said:

D&C 107

53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.

54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.

56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.

57 These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.

First question: Why isn't the book of Enoch recognized in the LDS canon?

Question 2: The valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman is in Missouri, why is all of the supporting evidence (manuscripts) for the Book of Enoch from the old world? 

1. It isn’t due time to testify of the things written therein.

2. Because he was born in the land of Cainan, and left it by the sea east, and as he journeyed to bring the word of God unto the ends of the earth even the mountains fled before him and the rivers turned from their course (Moses 6). He traveled a lot (Moses 7).

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, snowflake said:

Why isn't the book of Enoch recognized in the LDS canon?

Any book legitimately written by the prophet Enoch would absolutely become part of LDS canon.  Sadly, we do not have such a book at this time.
Sadly, even if it were direct from the mouth of the prophet by the hand of God it still wouldn't become part of the traditional Christian canon, because for some reason the Bible is considered unalterable and complete by many.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I endorse the previous answers:  We ain't got it!  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, snowflake said:

.....................................

First question: Why isn't the book of Enoch recognized in the LDS canon?

There is a book of Enoch in the LDS Canon right now, and it is part of the PGP Book of Moses.  Of course you have in mind the First Book of Enoch in Ethiopic, which is actually still part of the Christian Canon in Ethiopia, just as the Hebrew and Greek versions of it were part of the Christian & Jewish Canon in the Intertestamental and NT periods.  We simply do not have a pristine copy of it in Hebrew, and it appears to have been heavily edited and redacted over time.

7 hours ago, snowflake said:

Question 2: The valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman is in Missouri, why is all of the supporting evidence (manuscripts) for the Book of Enoch from the old world? 

Adam-ondi-Ahman is ante-Diluvian.  Even if there were MSS from that period, they would presumably have been destroyed.  Unless the Flood was only local or regional, then it becomes a question of extent.

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Adam-ondi-Ahman is ante-Diluvian.  Even if there were MSS from that period, they would presumably have been destroyed.  Unless the Flood was only local or regional, then it becomes a question of extent.

Masonic lore holds that Enoch made two records, one of stone and one of brass, to survive the foreseen deluge.

Also, the “unless” scenario shouldn’t be an issue if judged on equal ground.  If one believes Adam-ondi-Ahman and its historicity through the words of JS, wouldn’t one also be obliged to believe his teachings about a global flood?

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

Masonic lore holds that Enoch made two records, one of stone and one of brass, to survive the foreseen deluge.

Also, the “unless” scenario shouldn’t be an issue if judged on equal ground.  If one believes Adam-ondi-Ahman and its historicity through the words of JS, wouldn’t one also be obliged to believe his teachings about a global flood?

The "unless" is inescapable based solely on the tendency in Scripture (and in interpretations of Scripture) to employ hyperbole, as well as to ignore the full semantic range of words used in the original accounts.  Since ancient accounts are not made by professional historiographers, one must not measure them by the standards of such historiography. All this quite aside from the fact of Joseph being an ordinary, ignorant man like ourselves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The "unless" is inescapable based solely on the tendency in Scripture (and in interpretations of Scripture) to employ hyperbole, as well as to ignore the full semantic range of words used in the original accounts.  Since ancient accounts are not made by professional historiographers, one must not measure them by the standards of such historiography. All this quite aside from the fact of Joseph being an ordinary, ignorant man like ourselves.

IOU 199,000 rep points just for this one post!  ;)

(Glad rep points are not dollars but I will give you a nickel next time I see you !) ;)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The "unless" is inescapable based solely on the tendency in Scripture (and in interpretations of Scripture) to employ hyperbole, as well as to ignore the full semantic range of words used in the original accounts.  Since ancient accounts are not made by professional historiographers, one must not measure them by the standards of such historiography. All this quite aside from the fact of Joseph being an ordinary, ignorant man like ourselves.

Yes we’re all ignorant and ordinary.  Nevertheless, the prophets and teachings of the church are clear on the matter, no matter how many rep points you may gather saying otherwise.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-4-11-the-patriarchs?lang=eng

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don’t believe we’re entitled to change doctrine and teachings to fit our accepted norms.  

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, snowflake said:

First question: Why isn't the book of Enoch recognized in the LDS canon?

It is recognized, just not identified. As you posted, D&C 107: 57 says "These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time."

That revelation came in 1835, so the Book of Enoch referenced in LDS canon must be a Book of Enoch that wasn't available in 1835. So that rules out 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, the Book of Giants and most other texts that claim to be books of Enoch. 


Is there a particular Book of Enoch that you feel should be recognized in LDS canon? Which one, and why?

11 hours ago, snowflake said:

Question 2: The valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman is in Missouri, why is all of the supporting evidence (manuscripts) for the Book of Enoch from the old world? 

Adam-ondi-Ahman is the place Adam and Eve were expelled to. There are some old traditions of Adam being cast out of the Garden to a wilderness not far away. But being so close to the garden, and being constantly reminded of his loss, he experienced great sadness there and departed with his family to a more distant place. The sons of Seth, however, remained behind. Seth and his heirs from Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared to Enoch maintained the transmissions containing the Word of Enoch. 

The only thing I have found hinting at a location is the statements of Manetho and Josephus that it was recorded on a pillar or column in the Land of Seriad, or the Land of the (Bee) Hive. Nobody has any clue where that is. If you have one, please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, JAHS said:

We don't have that Book of Enoch yet; not to be confused with the pseudepigraphic books of Enoch which do exist.  In December 1877, Elder Orson Pratt said, "When we get that (Book of Enoch), I think we shall know a great deal about the ante-diluvians of whom at present we know so little" (JD 19:218). An extract from the prophecy of Enoch was revealed and published in the Book of Moses (chaps. 6-7), the latter chapter being published in the The Evening and The Morning Star of August 1832 (HC 1:130-31).

 

So it is to be revealed in the future.... i was thinking that it was the traditional Ethiopic book of Enoch that already exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, JAHS said:

Because when the Book of Enoch was written Missouri was in the old world when all the land was together. Afterwards the land was divided (Gen 10: 25)

Interesting take on Gen 10:25, i had never noticed that line before thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It is recognized, just not identified. As you posted, D&C 107: 57 says "These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time."

That revelation came in 1835, so the Book of Enoch referenced in LDS canon must be a Book of Enoch that wasn't available in 1835. So that rules out 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, the Book of Giants and most other texts that claim to be books of Enoch. 


Is there a particular Book of Enoch that you feel should be recognized in LDS canon? Which one, and why?

I thought the book thought to be complete by the Ethiopians would be the most accurate and complete.   Do you think the book referenced by Joseph is of ancient origin or to be revealed in the future? 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I thought the book thought to be complete by the Ethiopians would be the most accurate and complete.   Do you think the book referenced by Joseph is of ancient origin or to be revealed in the future? 

D&C 107: 57 says "These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time." So sounds like its both.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

D&C 107: 57 says "These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time." So sounds like its both.

It's fair to think that in the future manuscripts may be discovered supporting the book of Enoch and Joseph's prophecy. Something similar to the dead sea scrolls. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, snowflake said:

It's fair to think that in the future manuscripts may be discovered supporting the book of Enoch and Joseph's prophecy. Something similar to the dead sea scrolls. 

More realistically, the Book of Enoch is in Enoch's possession, and therefore not on the earth at this time.  It is therefore ancient, and able to be testified of upon Enoch's return.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

Yes we’re all ignorant and ordinary.  Nevertheless, the prophets and teachings of the church are clear on the matter, no matter how many rep points you may gather saying otherwise.  

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-4-11-the-patriarchs?lang=eng

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don’t believe we’re entitled to change doctrine and teachings to fit our accepted norms.  

Whether written by Hugh Nibley, you, or some other assigned person (or group), these LDS Church manuals are intended to do the same job done by similar manuals in Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches.  In some cases, the manuals are written by scholars who have extensive training in Hebrew, Greek, theology, and history.  In other cases, they are heedless of the best and latest information -- perhaps even fearful of it.  It is very odd, for example, to find an LDS manual quoting at length from Clarke's Bible Commentary, which has no place in modern biblical study.  It is as if we have become contemptuous of Joseph Smith's effort to study Hebrew., while at the same time giving high respect to some absurd etiological folklore.  Mere opinion is confused with doctrine, and liturgical accounts are treated as actual historical narrative.  Category mistakes abound, and the consequences are real.  That is what we should worry about, not rep points.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, snowflake said:

It's fair to think that in the future manuscripts may be discovered supporting the book of Enoch and Joseph's prophecy. Something similar to the dead sea scrolls. 

 

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

More realistically, the Book of Enoch is in Enoch's possession, and therefore not on the earth at this time.  It is therefore ancient, and able to be testified of upon Enoch's return.

Nonsense.  We have much of the Book of Enoch now, and it is quoted freely in Scripture.  Hugh Nibley spent years pointing this out to us, and we ought to pay attention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  We have much of the Book of Enoch now, and it is quoted freely in Scripture.  Hugh Nibley spent years pointing this out to us, and we ought to pay attention.

I presume you refer to teachings like this by Nibley - https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/10/a-strange-thing-in-the-land-the-return-of-the-book-of-enoch-part-1?lang=eng

  • In his writings Moses renewed the revelations and carried on the books of earlier prophets, according to our text, which also includes what the Prophet Joseph entitled “Extracts from the Prophecy of Enoch.” Of this, B. H. Roberts explains: “It will be understood … that the ‘Prophecy of Enoch’ itself is found in the ‘Writings of Moses,’ and that in the text above [Moses, chapter 7 [Moses 7] we have but a few extracts of the most prominent parts of ‘Enoch’s Prophecy.’”
    What was given to the Church in 1830 was, then, not the whole book of Enoch but only “a few extracts,” a mere epitome, but one composed, as we shall see, with marvelous skill; five years later the Saints were still looking forward to a fuller text: “These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.” (D&C 107:57.) The Enoch sections of the book of Moses were published in England in 1851 under the heading, “Extracts from the Prophecy of Enoch, containing also a Revelation of the Gospel unto our Father Adam, after He was driven out from the Garden of Eden.

 

It's a bit of a stretch to call Moses 6-8 "much of the Book of Enoch", especially considering they weren't written by Enoch but by Moses centuries later.
It is an assumption that the record referred to in D&C 107 refers to the document Moses wrote that we have part of.

  • D&C 107:56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.
    57 These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.

I know of no prophecy of Adam recorded by Enoch concerning all his posterity.  I know that Moses wrote his own version of these events.  Enoch's book from D&C 107 may very well remain with Enoch at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is a book of Enoch in the LDS Canon right now, and it is part of the PGP Book of Moses.  Of course you have in mind the First Book of Enoch in Ethiopic, which is actually still part of the Christian Canon in Ethiopia, just as the Hebrew and Greek versions of it were part of the Christian & Jewish Canon in the Intertestamental and NT periods.  We simply do not have a pristine copy of it in Hebrew, and it appears to have been heavily edited and redacted over time.

 

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The "unless" is inescapable based solely on the tendency in Scripture (and in interpretations of Scripture) to employ hyperbole, as well as to ignore the full semantic range of words used in the original accounts.  Since ancient accounts are not made by professional historiographers, one must not measure them by the standards of such historiography. All this quite aside from the fact of Joseph being an ordinary, ignorant man like ourselves.

I'm not sure i can trust Moses 6 and 7, it talks about men living over eight hundred years and the spirit of God descending out of heaven and voices from heaven talking to Enoch, is this the type of hyperbole we shouldn't trust because it wasn't recorded by professional historiographers or should we take the scripture as accurate and "God breathed"?  

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I'm not sure i can trust Moses 6 and 7, it talks about men living over eight hundred years and the spirit of God descending out of heaven and voices from heaven talking to Enoch, is this the type of hyperbole we shouldn't trust because it wasn't recorded by professional historiographers or should we take the scripture as accurate and "God breathed"?  

The long lives has something to do with the ancient Mesopotamian sexigesimal system of notation, so am not sure what we are to make of it.  Bear in mind, however, that this is being communicated to Moses long after the time of Enoch, and in a language never spoken by Enoch.  We must take all such documents as they were intended, in their own time, not as modern history texts.  Brother Brigham was cynical and realistic about taking Scripture at face value.  He was much more cautious and thoughtful than that:

Quote

I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible, have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth.   Journal of Discourses 13:175 (May 29, 1870).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I presume you refer to teachings like this by Nibley - https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/10/a-strange-thing-in-the-land-the-return-of-the-book-of-enoch-part-1?lang=eng

  • In his writings Moses renewed the revelations and carried on the books of earlier prophets, according to our text, which also includes what the Prophet Joseph entitled “Extracts from the Prophecy of Enoch.” Of this, B. H. Roberts explains: “It will be understood … that the ‘Prophecy of Enoch’ itself is found in the ‘Writings of Moses,’ and that in the text above [Moses, chapter 7 [Moses 7] we have but a few extracts of the most prominent parts of ‘Enoch’s Prophecy.’”
    What was given to the Church in 1830 was, then, not the whole book of Enoch but only “a few extracts,” a mere epitome, but one composed, as we shall see, with marvelous skill; five years later the Saints were still looking forward to a fuller text: “These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.” (D&C 107:57.) The Enoch sections of the book of Moses were published in England in 1851 under the heading, “Extracts from the Prophecy of Enoch, containing also a Revelation of the Gospel unto our Father Adam, after He was driven out from the Garden of Eden.

 

It's a bit of a stretch to call Moses 6-8 "much of the Book of Enoch", especially considering they weren't written by Enoch but by Moses centuries later.
....................................................

False.  I was not referring to Moses 6 - 8.  As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, that "much of the Book of Enoch" referred directly to I Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch) which remains to this day a solid part of the Christian Canon in Ethiopia, just as it once was an integral part of the Jewish and Christian Canon in the Intertestamental and early Christian period.  That  Enoch is quoted frequently in Holy Scripture, which is proof of its status then.  Anyone not understanding the relationship of I Enoch to Moses 6 - 8, and to the old Christian Canon, should consult H. Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, Collected Works II (FARMS/Deseret, 1986), which goes far beyond his Ensign series.

ETA:

1 Enoch.pdf

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

I'm not sure i can trust Moses 6 and 7, it talks about men living over eight hundred years and the spirit of God descending out of heaven and voices from heaven talking to Enoch, is this the type of hyperbole we shouldn't trust because it wasn't recorded by professional historiographers or should we take the scripture as accurate and "God breathed"?  

The long lives has something to do with the ancient Mesopotamian sexigesimal system of notation, so am not sure what we are to make of it.  Bear in mind, however, that this is being communicated to Moses long after the time of Enoch, and in a language never spoken by Enoch.  We must take all such documents as they were intended, in their own time, not as modern history texts.  Brother Brigham was cynical and realistic about taking Scripture at face value.  He was much more cautious and thoughtful than that:

Quote

I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible, have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth.   Journal of Discourses 13:175 (May 29, 1870).

Man, talk about brother Brigham being confused, no wonder half of what he taught has been disregarded by the current LDS sect!

But I understand your take on the long lifespans in the Book of Moses, and in Genesis, Robert. EV's and I would suspect the Jews to have to fudge their way around these timelines and long lifespans too. Only the crazy young earthers consider the timelines accurate.  But according to Brigham these could be the words of the devil so maybe they are just plain wrong. I usually get the argument for the word "yom" from the EV's and what that means and how it can be interpreted and bla bla bla....one day equals a thousand years....

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×