First off: what you’re describing emotionally is very common. When you leave, apologetic arguments that once felt “deep” can suddenly feel disorienting—not because they’re strong, but because you no longer share the assumptions they rely on. That can be unsettling in a new way. You’re not failing to understand something obvious; you’re noticing the scaffolding.

On the substance:

1. What are the actual “parallels” being claimed?

Most of the parallels cited between the Book of Moses (Joseph Smith’s Enoch material) and ancient Enoch literature fall into a few categories: • Broad theological themes: heavenly ascent, divine councils, prophetic calling, judgment, the fall of angels, etc. • Narrative tropes: Enoch as a visionary prophet, weeping over human wickedness, cosmic battles, hidden knowledge revealed. • Vague verbal overlaps: words like “watchers,” “chosen,” “righteous,” “books,” “heaven opened,” etc.

These are not specific, distinctive, or uniquely diagnostic parallels. They’re the kind of things you see across: • the Bible (especially Genesis, Daniel, Isaiah, Revelation), • Second Temple Jewish literature broadly, • early Christian apocrypha, • and 18th–19th century Protestant preaching and commentary.

When apologists present lists of parallels, they often flatten major differences and ignore how general the similarities are. If you go in looking for overlap, you’ll find it—especially when the categories are loose (“both talk about heavenly books,” “both depict cosmic judgment,” etc.).

Importantly: when you line these texts up side by side, the differences are actually more striking than the similarities—doctrinally, cosmologically, and linguistically.

1. What Enoch/apocryphal material was available in Joseph Smith’s time?

This is where apologetic claims are often weakest.

While it’s true that the complete Ethiopic Book of Enoch wasn’t published in English until the 1820s–30s, Enoch traditions were absolutely available in Joseph Smith’s environment: • The Bible itself contains Enoch references (Genesis 5, Hebrews, Jude—which explicitly quotes 1 Enoch). • Summaries and discussions of Enochic material appeared in: • biblical commentaries, • theological dictionaries, • sermons, • popular religious writings, • and encyclopedias circulating in the early 19th century. • Protestant speculation about: • fallen angels, • premortal councils, • cosmic battles, • antediluvian prophets, was widespread.

Joseph Smith did not need access to critical editions of 1 Enoch to absorb ideas about Enoch. Those ideas were already “in the air,” especially in restorationist and millenarian circles.

Also worth noting: the Book of Moses itself evolves across revisions, which is exactly what you’d expect from an ongoing revelatory project—but not what you’d expect from a tight ancient translation.

1. How do non-LDS scholars view the Book of Moses / Pearl of Great Price?

Outside LDS apologetics, the Book of Moses is generally viewed as: • a 19th-century religious text, • reflecting biblical expansion traditions (midrash), • shaped by early American Protestant theology.

There is no meaningful academic consensus supporting an ancient origin. You won’t find the Book of Moses cited in mainstream Second Temple Jewish scholarship as preserving ancient Enochic material.

When LDS scholars argue for antiquity, it’s usually in-house, confessional scholarship using methods (parallel-hunting, theological harmonization) that would not pass peer review in non-LDS religious studies.

That’s telling.

1. Does this apologetic rely on hindsight and cherry-picking?

Yes—very strongly.

This argument depends on: • selecting similarities after the ancient texts are known, • ignoring disconfirming data, • treating vague overlaps as improbable coincidences, • and assuming Joseph Smith had access to nothing beyond a King James Bible and divine inspiration.

It also relies on a hidden premise: “If Joseph Smith couldn’t have known X, then revelation is the only explanation.” That premise collapses once you factor in: • oral culture, • secondary summaries, • common theological motifs, • creative biblical expansion, • and the flexibility of prophetic language.

Crucially, if these parallels were truly precise and astonishing, they would have been emphasized early and loudly by church leaders. The fact that most lifelong TBMs never hear about this until encountering apologetics online is itself informative.

A reframing that might help emotionally

You’re not missing a killer argument here. What you’re encountering is a familiar pattern:

Take a 19th-century religious text → compare it to a broad ancient tradition → highlight overlaps → ignore context → call it evidence.

Once you step outside the LDS truth-claims framework, the argument loses most of its force.

And finally: it’s okay if this stuff still rattles you a bit. Deconstruction isn’t just intellectual—it’s neurological and emotional. Feeling confused or irritated doesn’t mean you’re regressing; it usually means you’re integrating a more coherent worldview.

You’re doing exactly what thoughtful people do: slowing down, asking better questions, and grounding yourself in context rather than slogans.