Jump to content
snowflake

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, snowflake said:

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

It's the only way the LDS doctrine of the global flood works.  Without the LDS view of Peleg, the flood doesn't cover the earth, nor do the animals get to the different continents.  The high mountains and separated continents formed within 200 years after Noah.

The Institute and Seminary manual has some good insights, among others.  https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-133-the-lords-appendix-to-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng

Here's a snip:

D&C 133:23–24. Will the Continents Be Rejoined?

Genesis indicates that in the early history of the world the land masses were united. Moses recorded that one of the great-great-grandsons of Shem was named Peleg (a Hebrew word meaning division) because “in his days was the earth divided” (Genesis 10:25). Many scholars have passed this reference off as meaning some sort of cultural or political division, but modern prophets have taught that this statement should be taken literally.

An article published early in the history of the Church under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith stated: “The Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!” (“The Last Days,” Evening and Morning Star, Feb. 1833, p. 1.)

Edited by Sevenbak

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

If it was written by me or Hugh Nibley, I woudn't be objecting, as it wouldn't be doctrine.  But Hugh or I aren't the issue, doctrine is.  The Church manuals are correlated for a reason, very carefully, in fact.  They say the same thing that numerous prophets and scripture, modern as well as ancient have said, since the foundation of the Church.  The flood was global.  That is the position of the church.  

The Guide to the Scriptures is a good example of this.  Even its introduction states its purpose includes defining doctrines.  That's a good place to start.  Here's what it has to say about Noah's Flood:  "During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing."

Edited by Sevenbak

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

It's the only way the LDS doctrine of the global flood works.  Without the LDS view of Peleg, the flood doesn't cover the earth, nor do the animals get to the different continents.  The high mountains and separated continents formed within 200 years after Noah.

The Institute and Seminary manual has some good insights, among others.  https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-133-the-lords-appendix-to-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng

Here's a snip:

D&C 133:23–24. Will the Continents Be Rejoined?

Genesis indicates that in the early history of the world the land masses were united. Moses recorded that one of the great-great-grandsons of Shem was named Peleg (a Hebrew word meaning division) because “in his days was the earth divided” (Genesis 10:25). Many scholars have passed this reference off as meaning some sort of cultural or political division, but modern prophets have taught that this statement should be taken literally.

An article published early in the history of the Church under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith stated: “The Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days!” (“The Last Days,” Evening and Morning Star, Feb. 1833, p. 1.)

Thank you! I know many LDS think the flood was local, is the global flood ever endorsed officially by a modern Prophet?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Thank you! I know many LDS think the flood was local, is the global flood ever endorsed officially by a modern Prophet?

YW.  I don't think "many" is a majority, but there are some here on this site that do.  Here's a partial list of modern prophets and church publications that reiterate that the flood was global.

 

 

January 1998 Ensign

Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groups—those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the story—are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earth's highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earth's existence. 

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.

"There was the great Flood, when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says, only 'eight souls were saved'" - Gordon B. Hinckley, If We Are Prepared Ye Shall Not Fear, 175th Semi-Annual General Priesthood Meeting Link is here.

FROM THE LDS WEBSITE: "During Noah's time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing (1 Pet. 3: 20-21)." Link is here.

Thus, modern revelation teaches that God indeed suffered great sorrow over the Flood, which served as the baptism of the earth.
—Joseph B. Romney, “Noah, The Great Preacher of Righteousness,” Ensign, Feb 1998

"In the days of Noah the Lord sent a universal flood which completely immersed the whole earth and destroyed all flesh except that preserved on the ark. (Gen. 6; 7; 8; 9; Moses 7:38-45; 8; Ether 13.2.) "Noah was born to save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness by the flood." (Teachings, p. 12) This flood was the baptism of the earth; before it occurred the land was all in one place, a condition that will again prevail during the millennial era. (D&C 133:23-24)". (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, p. 289)

"The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Noah was taken to the Old World by the Flood. This teaching was given by Joseph Smith and is still accepted as true doctrine. Given this teaching, Mormons have to accept the flood as a global phenomenon." (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, "Adam-Ondi-Ahman" p. 19-20)

FLOOD WAS BAPTISM OF EARTH. Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling. (Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: BookCraft, 1955), Vol.2, p.320)

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation. The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Earth"

These people were so wicked that they were no longer allowed to pollute the earth by their presence on it or to bring innocent spirits into its decadent environment. The Lord decreed that all living things would be destroyed by flood, with the exception of a faithful few who would be spared so that God could begin anew his creative work and reestablish his covenant among men.
—Kent P. Jackson, “An Age of Contrasts: From Adam to Abraham,” Ensign, Feb 1986, 28

The worldwide flood of Noah's time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years...the worldwide flood of Noah's time, so upsetting to a restricted secular view, fits easily into place. It is the earth's baptism.
—F. Kent Nielsen, “The Gospel and the Scientific View: How Earth Came to Be,” Ensign, Sep 1980, 67

Is not today much like Noah's day when the population of the earth was wiped out in the flood and but eight righteous souls were spared? Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their willful stubbornness they would not listen.
—Mark E. Petersen, “Follow the Prophets,” Ensign, Nov 1981, 64

The Lord further indicated that all flesh was corrupt in those days, and so he brought forth the flood and destroyed all flesh except Noah and his family. Therefore, we are all descendants of righteous Noah. But the family concept is under very serious attack today all over the world. 
—Hartman Rector Jr., “Turning the Hearts,” Ensign, May 1981, 73

Two generations later the Lord was so pained by that generation “without affection” (Moses 7:33) that he opened the windows of heaven and cleansed the entire earth with water. Thus, the “everlasting decree” (Ether 2:10) was first taught that he who will not obey the Lord in righteousness will be swept from his sacred land. The lesson would be tragically retaught in dispensations yet to come.
—Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Promised Land,” Ensign, Jun 1976, 23

From the scriptures we can identify some of these chosen individuals, starting with Michael who was referred to as the Archangel, one of high rank in the spirit world. He was chosen to be Adam, the first man, to stand forever under the Father and the Son at the head of the human family. Others of the chosen were Seth, the most faithful of Adam's sons after the death of the righteous Abel, and Enoch, through whose lineage the Lord promised would come Noah and the Messiah, and that his posterity should remain while the earth should stand. Another one was Noah, who was chosen to be the second father of the human race here on earth, after the flood. Another was Shem, the chosen son of Noah; and also Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
—William H. Bennett, “Covenants and Blessings,” Ensign, Nov 1975, 45

The history of the peopling of the earth is really a history of the scattering of the descendants of Noah, who is sometimes referred to as the “second father of mankind.” This general scattering began soon after the Flood when the sons of Noah and their children began to spread forth “in their lands, … after their nations” (see Gen. 10:5, 20, 31)
—Lane Johnson, “Who and Where Are the Lamanites?,” Ensign, Dec 1975, 15

Some people talk very philosophically about tidal waves coming along. But the question is—How could you get a tidal wave out of the Pacific ocean, say, to cover the Sierra Nevadas? But the Bible does not tell us it was a tidal wave. It simply tells us that "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." That is, the earth was immersed. It was a period of baptism.
—John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 26:74-75.

Another great change happened nearly two thousand years after the earth was made. It was baptized by water. A great flow of water come, the great deep was broken up, the windows of heaven were opened from on high, and the waters prevailed upon the face of the earth, sweeping away all wickedness and transgression-a similitude of baptism for the remission of sins. God requires the children of men to be baptized. What for? For the remission of sins. So he required our globe to be baptized by a flow of waters, and all of its sins were washed away, not one sin remaining.
—Orson Pratt, (August 1, 1880) Journal of Discourses 21:323.

By and by we find the people departing from the principles of truth, from the laws of the Gospel, repudiating the fear of God, grieving his Holy Spirit and incurring his displeasure. Then a flood came and the inhabitants of the world, with the exception of a very few, were swept from it, after the Gospel had been preached to all who then lived and all had had an opportunity to believe in and obey it.
—John Taylor, "DESTRUCTION OF THE WICKED BY THE FLOOD, etc.," Journal of Discourses 17:205.

This earth, in its present condition and situation, is not a fit habitation for the sanctified; but it abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon.
—Brigham Young, (June 12, 1860) Journal of Discourses 8:83.

 

Many prophets from two different continents and different eras have identified Noah as a historical, not a mythical, character. These include Enoch (see Moses 7:42-43), Abraham (see Abr. 1:19-24), Amulek (see Alma 10:22), Moroni (see Ether 6:7), Matthew (see JS-M 1:41-42), Peter (see 2 Pet. 2:5), Joseph Smith (see D&C 84:14-15; D&C 133:54), and Joseph F. Smith (see D&C 138:9, 41). The Lord Jesus Christ himself spoke to the Nephites of the "waters of Noah" (3 Ne. 22:9). Recent latter-day prophets and apostles have similarly spoken of Noah. For example, Elder Howard W. Hunter, then of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, asked, "Because modernists now declare the story of the flood is unreasonable and impossible, should we disbelieve the account of Noah and the flood as related in the Old Testament?"

The Book of Ether mentions 'and that after the waters had receded from off the face of the land it became a choice land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof'. (see Ether 13:2).

Alma 10:22 Yea, and I say unto you that if it were not for the prayers of the righteous, who are now in the land, that ye would even now be visited with utter destruction; yet it would not be by flood, as were the people in the days of Noah, but it would be by famine, and by pestilence, and the sword.

The Book of Abraham (Abr. 1:19-24) teaches the land of Egypt was discovered by the daughter in law of Noah after the flood, that Egypt was under water (implying it was the global flood) when she found it.

The most voluminous scriptural witness to Noah and the Flood is recorded in the writings of Moses, who dedicated a total of 57 verses in the King James Version to the account (Gen. 6:9-8:19). It is instructive to note that some of Noah's actual words are preserved in the Book of Moses, which introduces them with "And it came to pass that Noah continued his preaching unto the people, saying"-followed by his words: "Hearken, and give heed unto my words; Believe and repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things made manifest; and if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you" (Moses 8:23-24). This text is significant in that it confirms that Noah, like his predecessors, understood the gospel covenant, including the baptismal ordinance and Jesus Christ's role as Savior.

Moses may have received his information about Noah through direct revelation, or perhaps he used ancient records that were written by one of the eyewitnesses to the Flood, such as Noah himself or one of his sons. Such records, presuming they once existed, are now lost to the world. In the book of Genesis, Moses clearly states that a flood occurred, and the terminology definitely refers to a worldwide flood, as opposed to a localized flood. The Joseph Smith Translation backs up the Genesis account, modifying the wording only slightly.

Said the Lord, "I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die" (Gen. 6:17; emphasis added in this and other scriptures in this article). The phrases "all flesh . from under heaven" and "every thing that is in the earth" indicate a worldwide destruction of all creatures that lived on land. Note that the Inspired Version, translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, changes "in the earth" to "on the earth" (JST, Gen. 8:22).

Genesis 7:19-20 [Gen. 7:19-20] states, "All the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered . ; and the mountains were covered." These verses explicitly state that all of earth's high mountains ("hills" should read "mountains" here; Hebrew harim) were covered by the waters. Lest one believe that the statement "under the whole heaven" is figurative and can be read or interpreted in different ways, a scriptural search through the entire Old Testament reveals that the phrase is used elsewhere only in a universal sense, as it is here; the phrase does not refer to a geographically restricted area (see Deut. 2:25; Deut. 4:19; Job 28:24; Job 37:3; Dan. 9:12). For instance, Job 28:24 also uses the phrase when referring to God's omniscience, which is certainly not restricted to a specific geographical region on the earth.

Genesis 7:21 [Gen. 7:21] states, "All flesh died that moved upon the earth, . every creeping thing . every man." The phrase "all flesh" refers to all land animals, creeping things, and fowls and all of humanity, with the exception of those in the ark (see Gen. 7:23). The entry every in the Oxford American Dictionary reads: "each single one, without exception." Moses is clearly trying to let us understand that the Flood was universal.

Verse 22 [Gen. 7:22] states, "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." Again the term "all" expresses a sum total. The term "dry land" should be read literally here, having reference to the land masses of our planet.

Verse 23 [Gen. 7:23] states, "Every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl." Moses' list of those destroyed by the Flood is inclusive; only Noah "remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

Genesis 8:5 [Gen. 8:5] states, "In the tenth month . were the tops of the mountains seen." After the flood, the "waters decreased" until Noah and his group were able to once again see mountaintops.

Verse 9 states, "The waters were on the face of the whole earth." The phrase "on the face of the whole earth" refers to a worldwide flood (see Gen. 1:29; Gen. 11:4, 8, 9).

Taken altogether, these statements should convince every believer in the Bible that the great deluge was a worldwide event, 4 not a localized flood that filled only the Mesopotamian or some other region.

[And then further down Parry states]

...4. Latter-day prophets teach that the Flood or the total immersion of the earth in water represents the earth's required baptism. Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: "Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling 'the measure of its creation.' They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an immersion of the earth in water." He writes that the removal of earth's wicked inhabitants in the Flood represents that which occurs in our own baptism for the remission of sins.

13. Evidences and Reconciliations (1960), 127-28; see also Doctrines of Salvation, 2:320-21."

2014 - Still taught as literal: Ensign, February 2014

Topics section of LDS.org: As of 4/24/14, in the topical guide of the LDS.org website, there is a topic called Noah. The discussion confirms that Noah was real and it was a global flood:

Just as the earth was immersed in water, so we must be baptized by water and by the Spirit before we can enter the celestial kingdom.

Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives were the only people on the whole earth saved from the flood.

Noah was the Angel Gabriel.

From link here.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

The EofM doesn't have the full quote of Elder Widtsoe's comment.  I have the book itself, but the quote has been put up in another thread so am just going to link and quote the relevant part that allows for divisions of continents and formations of mountains long before:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63532-elder-john-a-widtsoe-on-the-flood-full-context/

Quote

Another suggestion is that the earth at that time was so flat that a depth of water of twenty-six feet would cover the highest hill. There is no existing evidence of this supposition; and Mount Ararat did exist then according to the record.

It has also been suggested that a blanket of water twenty-six feet thick lay up and down the sides of every hill, mountain, and valley. This would seem to be in defiance of the law of gravity, though under a long-continued, furious rainfall such a layer, not too thick, might roll down every slope....

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us....

Though the whole of the earth was covered with water, the depth was immaterial. When a person is baptized, it does not matter how far under the water he is brought, nor whether every part of him is at the same depth. The essential part of the symbolism is the that he should be completely immersed.

So with the story of the flood. All parts of the earth were under water at the same time. In some places the layer of water might have been twenty-six feet deep or more; in others, as on sloping hillsides, it might have been only a fraction of an inch in depth. That the whole earth, however, was under water at the same time was easily possible under a terrific, long-continued downpour, such as is described in Genesis. The depth of the layer of water is of no consequence.

 

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

Verse 9 states, "The waters were on the face of the whole earth." The phrase "on the face of the whole earth" refers to a worldwide flood (see Gen. 1:29; Gen. 11:4, 8, 9).

I have sometimes wondered if the phrase "whole earth"  refers to the entire planet as we know it or if it only refers to the "whole earth" as they knew it back then; which would not include the entire planet.
Example 
"And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt. . . . For they covered the face of the whole earth, . . . and there remained not any green thing . . . through all the land of Egypt." (Exodus 10:14-15)
Here the phrase whole earth is equated only with the land of Egypt and not the entire planet earth. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Sevenbak said:

If it was written by me or Hugh Nibley, I woudn't be objecting, as it wouldn't be doctrine.  But Hugh or I aren't the issue, doctrine is.  The Church manuals are correlated for a reason, very carefully, in fact.  They say the same thing that numerous prophets and scripture, modern as well as ancient have said, since the foundation of the Church.  The flood was global.  That is the position of the church.  

The Guide to the Scriptures is a good example of this.  Even its introduction states its purpose includes defining doctrines.  That's a good place to start.  Here's what it has to say about Noah's Flood:  "During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water. This was the baptism of the earth and symbolized a cleansing."

I realize that there are people who actually believe that opinions expressed in the manuals constitute official doctrine or canonical revelation.  There are also LDS folks who believe that mere assertion constitutes fact.  For the reasons I have already stated, that ain't necessarily so.  The Guide to Scripture, the Bible Dictionary, introductions, and many other helps and notes are often believed to be part of the Scriptural Canon.  They are not.

A great many people believe that the Great Deluge completely immersed the Earth, arguing that the total immersion is necessary for the baptism of the Earth, never realizing that the complete immersion is not necessary to baptism in such cases.  That Flood is even believed to prefigure baptism into Jesus (I Peter 3:18-21).  Yet Israel passing through the Red Sea dryshod is also a "baptism"  into Jesus (I Cor 10:1-2), even though they didn't get wet.  How can a "baptism" not get us wet?  When it is merely figurative or symbolic, that's how.  We need to carefully think these things through.

It might not be wise to read liturgical texts as narrative history.  We can readily see what that has done to modern evangelicalism.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, snowflake said:

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....

Brigham was clearly referring to actual quotations of the Devil and his followers in the Bible.  My question would be Why are you not aware of that fact?  Far from being confused. Brigham expressed the views which one would expect from a discerning scholar.  We should all be gracious and fair toward reasonable arguments from disparate sources.  Don't you believe that fair is fair, snowflake?

As to the long lives of the ante-diluvian patriarchs, we find the same inflated lengths of life among the Sumerian King List, and the same sexigesimal total for their biblical parallels.  No way that is accidental.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/12/2018 at 11:46 AM, snowflake said:

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? 

The Book of Enoch is not the Book of Enoch.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JAHS said:

I have sometimes wondered if the phrase "whole earth"  refers to the entire planet as we know it or if it only refers to the "whole earth" as they knew it back then; which would not include the entire planet.
Example 
"And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt. . . . For they covered the face of the whole earth, . . . and there remained not any green thing . . . through all the land of Egypt." (Exodus 10:14-15)
Here the phrase whole earth is equated only with the land of Egypt and not the entire planet earth. 

 

I think this is a great example of why we have the law of witnesses, multiple scriptures, correlation, etc., so that no private interpretation of the scriptures defines doctrines for the church. 

Having both the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and Bible say the same thing about every now existing continent being under water during the flood, it's yet further scriptural evidence of the truth as taught.

For example, in Ether 13:2 we read. after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

And in Abraham 1:24, speaking of the other side of the world... When this woman discovered the land it was under water who afterward settled her sons in it, and thus, from Ham, sprang that race...

And from Genesis 7:4 ...yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

 

Now the last one, Genesis, is really a direct answer to your post, as it's the Lord speaking...  Certainly the Lord's perspective is more than just what man alone can see, it one wants to go down the road of "Silly prophet, Tricks are for kids..."  ;-)

 

Share this post


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

I realize that there are people who actually believe that opinions expressed in the manuals constitute official doctrine or canonical revelation.  There are also LDS folks who believe that mere assertion constitutes fact.  For the reasons I have already stated, that ain't necessarily so.  The Guide to Scripture, the Bible Dictionary, introductions, and many other helps and notes are often believed to be part of the Scriptural Canon.  They are not.

A great many people believe that the Great Deluge completely immersed the Earth, arguing that the total immersion is necessary for the baptism of the Earth, never realizing that the complete immersion is not necessary to baptism in such cases.  That Flood is even believed to prefigure baptism into Jesus (I Peter 3:18-21).  Yet Israel passing through the Red Sea dryshod is also a "baptism"  into Jesus (I Cor 10:1-2), even though they didn't get wet.  How can a "baptism" not get us wet?  When it is merely figurative or symbolic, that's how.  We need to carefully think these things through.

It might not be wise to read liturgical texts as narrative history.  We can readily see what that has done to modern evangelicalism.

Danger, Danger Will Robinson...

This is exactly why we have correlation, so that errors don't creep into the Church.  If one dismisses the correlated manuals, GC addresses, etc, as simply opinion, what is the purpose or value of such to an individual seeking truth?

It's really really important that we don't go teaching falsehoods based on our own interpretations and understanding.

This is why we have correlation:

            1. CORRELATION in a broad sense includes matters pertaining to (1) doctrine; (2) Church policies, procedures, and practices, and (3) factual accuracy. Thus, items listed in an evaluation report in this category include:
 
a. Doctrine of the Church, consisting of (1) the teachings of the scriptures; (2) the clearly defined interpretations placed on the scriptures by the prophets, seers, and revelators of this dispensation; and (3) the exact and appropriate rendering of scriptural references.
 
b. Policies, procedures, and practices of the Church, involving correctness of a proposed statement as compared with the statement approved by the General Authorities on such matters as policies, procedures, practices, organizational structure, and the content of handbooks and guidelines.
 
c. Factual accuracy, including such items as correctness of dates, names, places, historical events, etc.
 
  
 
Elder Dallin H. Oaks explains why:
 
"The Church does approve or disapprove those publications that are to be published or used in the official activities of the Church, general or local. For example, we have procedures to ensure approved content for materials published in the name of the Church or used for instruction in its classes. These procedures can be somewhat slow and cumbersome, but they have an important benefit. They provide a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said.  Members who listen to the voice of the Church need not be on guard against being misled. They have no such assurance for what they hear from alternate voices."

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Sevenbak said:

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

            1. CORRELATION in a broad sense includes matters pertaining to (1) doctrine; (2) Church policies, procedures, and practices, and (3) factual accuracy. .............
 
a. Doctrine of the Church, consisting of (1) the teachings of the scriptures; (2) the clearly defined interpretations placed on the scriptures by the prophets, seers, and revelators of this dispensation; and (3) the exact and appropriate rendering of scriptural references.
....................................
c. Factual accuracy, ..............  
 
Elder Dallin H. Oaks ............. They provide a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said.  Members who listen to the voice of the Church need not be on guard against being misled. They have no such assurance for what they hear from alternate voices."

I fully understand the theory and practice of Correlation, and I have known some of those doing it at Church HQ.  They do mean well, but their lack of sophistication does hamper their ability to get it "right," for the reasons which I have already stated.  That does not mean that there have not been improvements over the years in the training and quality of some of the scholars writing the manuals.  Yet committee projects have a way of reaching for the lowest common denominator, despite the best of intentions.  The same is true for other insular groups which want to keep the world at bay.  The fear is palpable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Has anyone here besides me read  " The Genesis Flood " by Whitcomb and Morris ? Despite its particular theological bent it does give reasonable cause to consider a global flood and points out several holes / flaws in the uniformitarian geological approach to Earth's history. " Catastrophism Rules" !!

Side note: there is also a problem with the large numbers of people killed by David and his armies  as well as the numbers of the population of Israel as written in the OT. It is suspected that the word translated for ' thousands ' could also stand for a smaller military unit .

And if there is one thing I read about the OT , whoever is said to have written a particular book , probably didn't, but we don't know who did. so...

Share this post


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

Brigham was clearly referring to actual quotations of the Devil and his followers in the Bible.  My question would be Why are you not aware of that fact?  Far from being confused. Brigham expressed the views which one would expect from a discerning scholar.  We should all be gracious and fair toward reasonable arguments from disparate sources.  Don't you believe that fair is fair, snowflake?

Yes I do think fair is fair.  Sure there are many different "authors" in the Bible, but scripture tells us that it is "God breathed", therefore to be trusted as accurate.  In his quote he seems to indicate that the only part that should be trusted is the parts about the doctrine of salvation....which is odd because the current salt lake LDS sect don't really follow what the Bible says about salvation. Everyone is saved according to the current teaching, there is no hell. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/12/2018 at 9:46 AM, snowflake said:

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

Just because the 1 Enoch (Ethiopic) in its original state was quoted from in the New Testament means that the New Testament authors thought there was value and truth in it.  That doesn't mean that the whole thing was of worth.  I personally feel that a lot of the story in it is all figurative about the watchers.  It seems to me that Jude interpreted the watchers story as metaphorical, and had reference to the spirits that fell in pre-existence:

Quote

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude:1:6)

Compare this with the watchers:

Quote

Go and announce his crime to Samyaza, and to the others who are with him, who have been associated with women, that they might be polluted with all their impurity. And when all their sons shall be slain, when they shall see the perdition of their beloved, bind them for seventy generations underneath the earth, even to the day of judgment, and of consummation, until the judgment, the effect of which will last for ever, be completed.

Jude is actually interpreting this for us.  The angels who cohabited with women is a figurative thing where the spiritual meaning of this is that Satan and his angels kept not their first estate.  Samyaza is a figure for Satan himself.  I see this as not objectionable if we properly understand what the author of 1 Enoch actually had in mind, which Jude understood.  So while 1 Enoch has a lot of truth, and was quoted by a number of people, and has authentic Jewish traditions, that doesn't make it scripture.  That's like an LDS general authority quoting from CS Lewis.  Just because he quotes from it doesn't make it scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Yes I do think fair is fair.  Sure there are many different "authors" in the Bible, but scripture tells us that it is "God breathed", therefore to be trusted as accurate.  In his quote he seems to indicate that the only part that should be trusted is the parts about the doctrine of salvation....which is odd because the current salt lake LDS sect don't really follow what the Bible says about salvation. Everyone is saved according to the current teaching, there is no hell. 

For those who come from an ever expanding denominational background, it is quite true that interpretations of Holy Writ run the gamut, and everyone becomes his own exegete.  LDS Church  dogma argues that it is precisely for that reason that prophets are needed now just as they were anciently -- in order to speak on behalf of God and to provide authoritative interpretations.

As to your claim that the LDS faith is too universalist for you, why would that bother you?  Is someone coercing you to become a member of that horrible Mormon sect?  -- which by the way preaches the same Hell as found in the NT,

2 Nephi 9:16 "they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end."

Jacob 3:11 "awake from the slumber of death; and loose yourselves from the pains of hell that ye may not become angels to the devil, to be cast into that lake of fire and brimstone which is the second death."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Once again, on the formal declaration of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1.

Quote

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these acommandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their blanguage, that they might come to cunderstanding.

25 And inasmuch as they aerred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought awisdom they might be binstructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be achastened, that they might brepent;

28 And inasmuch as they were ahumble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive bknowledge from time to time.

I notice that the passages have never been correlated out of the scriptures.

Alma's makes several statements on the varied kinds of authority behind his own statements, with implications for any claims to perfect omniscience.  He refers to revelation, angels, study, inquiry, and for some things, "I give it as my opinion."  He does not describe himself as a sock puppet with but one input and one output, the infallible word of God.  Nor do any prophets.  It is only a certain group of followers who do that.

And there is the problem of extending the definition of what we should call or consider doctrine beyond what Jesus himself declares to be such.  More or less than faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Spirit, and enduring to the end, amounts to building on sand.   Many young people loose faith when informed that to be properly LDS they must believe this or that which is not part of this formal definition. Is that loss of youth and subsequent families and generations worth the dubious benefit accruing the construction of a Big Book of What to Think?  Or can we conceive of ourselves as "looking for further light and knowledge" on a range of topics?

Four years ago, in an MDD exchange on the esoteric topic of the baptism of the earth, Ben McGuire sensibly asked when did the earth reach the age of accountability, and when and how did it sin, so that, unlike children who die before the age of accountability and do not need baptism, it requires baptism?  He also pointed out that the notion was common pre-LDS concept, not an LDS revelation.

Personally, I don't believe in a global flood, a young earth, no death before the fall from Eden (which in the drama was a garden tended by two, from which those two could be expelled to a different set of conditions) or continents sliding thousands of miles at short notice in the Days of Peleg (I was in big California earthquake involving some plates sliding a few inches and such things do get noticed), or the infallibility of interpretive traditions that the LDS demonstrably inherited from earlier Bible readers and traditions.  And I think our scriptures and best scholars are far more interesting and full of possibility than we give them credit for.  (Reading Nibley's Before Adam in 1980 was a major event in my personal spiritual journey.)  It's difficult, if not impossible, for a close mind to expand to increased understanding, and enlightenment.  The growth of a seed, Alma notes, involves the appearance of shoots, buds, roots, branches, and leaves and fruit, which, while genetically connected to the original seed, were not visible before the experiment took place.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

For those who come from an ever expanding denominational background, it is quite true that interpretations of Holy Writ run the gamut, and everyone becomes his own exegete.  LDS Church  dogma argues that it is precisely for that reason that prophets are needed now just as they were anciently -- in order to speak on behalf of God and to provide authoritative interpretations.

I am aware of the role of your prophets. Doesn't it bother you that the LDS prophets don't always agree on many doctrinal issues? Brigham is a prime example of doctrine now considered erroneous. 

 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As to your claim that the LDS faith is too universalist for you, why would that bother you?  Is someone coercing you to become a member of that horrible Mormon sect?  -- which by the way preaches the same Hell as found in the NT,

Honestly Robert, I truly hope that the LDS worldview of life after death and a second chance to accept Jesus as Lord and savior is correct.  But I just don't see that in the Bible. 

Hebrews 9:[27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

There is no way you can claim that Mormonism preaches the same hell as the EV's. Now i am aware that in the BOM that hell is spoken of very similar to in the NT, but that is not what you will hear from the brethren. You see Robert, the LDS want it both ways, they use the Bible and call it God's word when it supports their position, when it doesn't support their position it is "erroneous and has been corrupted by evil men". They will tell you that you can deny Christ here on earth and still get a second chance after death. 

Share this post


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

I fully understand the theory and practice of Correlation, and I have known some of those doing it at Church HQ.  They do mean well, but their lack of sophistication does hamper their ability to get it "right," for the reasons which I have already stated.  That does not mean that there have not been improvements over the years in the training and quality of some of the scholars writing the manuals.  Yet committee projects have a way of reaching for the lowest common denominator, despite the best of intentions.  The same is true for other insular groups which want to keep the world at bay.  The fear is palpable.

This is a little too highbrow ark steadying for my taste.  I think there are better ways to err on the side of truth than discounting the prophets and the church's established curriculum.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, snowflake said:

I am aware of the role of your prophets. Doesn't it bother you that the LDS prophets don't always agree on many doctrinal issues? Brigham is a prime example of doctrine now considered erroneous. 

But that is no different than the wide divergence of policies and revelations available in the Bible.  There are literally thousands of aporias, difficulties, and anachronisms in the Bible which make it appear that the Bible is internally inconsistent and that biblical theology is not at all unified.  A good deal of that is based on human ignorance of the ancient world, failure to read biblical language accurately, and failure to understand the economy of God.  Some groups are more at fault than others in their eisegetic or apriori interpretations which lead to false religious practice.  They refuse to let God be true.

Quote

Honestly Robert, I truly hope that the LDS worldview of life after death and a second chance to accept Jesus as Lord and savior is correct.  But I just don't see that in the Bible. 

Hebrews 9:[27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

There is no way you can claim that Mormonism preaches the same hell as the EV's. Now i am aware that in the BOM that hell is spoken of very similar to in the NT, but that is not what you will hear from the brethren. You see Robert, the LDS want it both ways, they use the Bible and call it God's word when it supports their position, when it doesn't support their position it is "erroneous and has been corrupted by evil men". They will tell you that you can deny Christ here on earth and still get a second chance after death. 

It is true that evangelicals interpret some passages of Scripture literally, where the text demands a figurative interpretation.  For example, the notion of a lake of fire and brimstone may be no more than a figurative expression, like gnashing of teeth, and that Hell is really the absence of God and his Holy Spirit in what is actually Outer Darkness.  What could be more horrible?  A good deal of variant theological opinion strikes me as the arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic as it goes down, instead of coming to grips with the truth, which is that God loves us, and that He gave his only Begotten Son as a sacrifice for us.

Why do the evangelicals deny Christ his great Atonement?  Why are they so intent on hating their neighbor?  In fact, LDS theology is remarkably consistent and solid. That is how outside scholars see us.  For example, Ernst Benz on the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis:

Quote

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith's anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.  "Der Mensch als Imago Dei," in Eranos Jahrbuch 40 (1971), and also published in Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326. 

Another non-Mormon scholar, James Barr, clearly saw the early Christian practice of baptism for the dead as part of a continuous Jewish tradition of vicarious or proxy sacrifice on behalf of the dead, which is the direct opposite of your assumptions:  See Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1983), 40-43 n. 19, tying together 1 Cor 15:29 and 2 Macc 12:40-45.  For Krister Stendahl (Lutheran Bishop and Dean Emeritus of Harvard Divinity School), LDS baptism for the dead is rightly subject to “holy envy”:
Quote

    In a world where we finally have learned what I call the “holy envy,” it’s a beautiful thing.  I could think of myself as taking part in such an act, extending the blessings that have come to me in and through Jesus Christ.  That’s generous.  That’s beautiful.  And it should not be ridiculed or spoken badly of.  “Between Heaven and Earth,” Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints full-length DVD (Intellectual Reserve, 2005), 28:40.

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

This is a little too highbrow ark steadying for my taste.  I think there are better ways to err on the side of truth than discounting the prophets and the church's established curriculum.

As I frequently tell the evangelicals, Let God be true. Don't hem Him in.  That does in no way discount the prophets, but makes way for them to have full effect.  We are our own worst enemies, constantly shooting ourselves in the foot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Once again, on the formal declaration of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants" in D&C 1.

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these acommandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their blanguage, that they might come to cunderstanding.

25 And inasmuch as they aerred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought awisdom they might be binstructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be achastened, that they might brepent;

28 And inasmuch as they were ahumble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive bknowledge from time to time.

 

I notice that the passages have never been correlated out of the scriptures.

I also noticed that you didn't include the culminating statement following what you snipped.  Verse 38:

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

The Lord, though his spirit, speaks to his servants to establish his word.  If one thinks His word actually means something else, then I suppose that's a problem... for the individual thinking that.   It's comforting to know that the doctrines don't change via committees of intellectualism.  They tried that with the creeds of early Christendom.  Look where that led.

Edited by Sevenbak

Share this post


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

As I frequently tell the evangelicals, Let God be true. Don't hem Him in.  That does in no way discount the prophets, but makes way for them to have full effect.  We are our own worst enemies, constantly shooting ourselves in the foot.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I understand your position, but think it a dangerous road.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Honestly Robert, I truly hope that the LDS worldview of life after death and a second chance to accept Jesus as Lord and savior is correct. 

What causes you to have that hope?  Is it not a yearning for what is right, Godly, fair, perfectly just and merciful, light, and true, which draws you to this hope?

Now, there may be some miscommunication happening here about a "second chance to accept Jesus".  What do you mean by that specifically?  Is this life the first and only chance for all people, regardless?  How can you justify that given that some people in this life literally never hear the word of God preached, and therefore can never attain faith in Christ.  For as we know, "faith cometh by hearing..."

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Hebrews 9:[27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

This verse does not contradict any Mormon scriptures or teachings. 

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

There is no way you can claim that Mormonism preaches the same hell as the EV's.

We believe in the same hell (outer darkness), we just disagree as to who qualifies for hell. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Sevenbak said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I understand your position, but think it a dangerous road.

You are probably right, but I only speak this way here, and in published articles and books -- assuming that participants on this board and in the scholarly community can handle the cognitive dissonance.  When I teach in my ward, I am very circumspect in following the correlated curriculum.  Milk before meat, you know.  They have no idea that there is even a controversy, and wouldn't know how to handle it if they did.

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.

×