4

Recently, I have been reading apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts, and like many before me, I am struck by the extremely specific similarities between 1 Enoch and the LDS's Book of Moses. I flipped to the back of the LDS's Bible Dictionary, and noticed that the LDS Church also agrees that there are many truths in 1 Enoch. I also found a fascinating article by LDS scholar Hugh Nibley pertaining to 1 Enoch.

I understand from this Q&A why other Christians do not canonize 1 Enoch.

I also understand why non-LDS folk would not find the parallels and similarities (in comparison to the Book of Moses) genuine enough for the Books of Enoch to be canonized by the LDS Church, as detailed in length in this Q&A

However, I do not understand why the LDS Church does not choose to canonize this text if they consider it be an inspired work with many truths similar to their own. What are the key aspects that make LDS authorities skeptical of fully embracing 1 Enoch as part of the sacred writ? After all, they have Songs of Solomon in their cannon... 1 Enoch seems a lot more relevant and aligned with their doctrine.

  • 1
    they have Songs of Solomon in their cannon: Actually, "The JST states that 'the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'" - lds.org/scriptures/bd/song-of-solomon?lang=eng – Matt Jul 20 '16 at 5:22
  • 1
    Correct. So why is Songs of Solomon canonized, but not 1 Enoch? – Butterfly and Bones Jul 20 '16 at 5:26
  • 1
    The Book of Enoch is recognized in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as canon and thus inspired. – Ken Graham Jul 20 '16 at 11:23
  • 1
    @KenGraham the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The EOC may consider it inspired, but the LDS do not. – ShemSeger Jul 21 '16 at 15:18
  • 2
    Additionally, not everything that's inspired is canonized. Usually something becomes canonized when it contains important doctrines and teachings that aren't found in other scriptures already. If something is canonized, it becomes our responsibility to consistently study and become familiar with it, so in a way it's merciful that we don't have too many canonized works! :) Related: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8551/… ; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_works – Samuel Bradshaw Jul 22 '16 at 5:41
2

According to Doctrine and Covenants Section 91

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

This is referencing Joseph Smith's work in "translating" the bible. The work that lead to the Book of Moses and the JST version of the bible.

The takeaway here is that in the view of the LDS church, there is some truth in the Apocryphal texts, there is also some falsehood. Therefor it is easier to stick with the texts generally accepted as good by most followers of the Christian tradition.

  • 1
    I know that reference fairly well. It's a general statement regarding an entire corpus of apocryphal works. But what are the "falsehoods" in 1 Enoch? It seems like one of the true ones. What do the general authorities say about it? – Butterfly and Bones Jul 20 '16 at 17:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.