Upon what authority are you assuming all these "books" were 100% inspired and that God wanted them included in the Bible?
What? Just because they are cited in another book of Scripture?
* The apostle Paul references a letter to the Corinthians prior to 1 Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 5:9). It doesn't mean that the previous letter wasn't authoritative from an apostle; it simply could mean that God for some reason didn't want it included in the canon.
After all, DU, be consistent: How many talks have been given by Lds "prophets" and "apostles" -- just even from their General Conferences' messages -- that have wound up in Doctrine & Covenants? How does the number "zero" sound to you, DU?
And you lambast Christians for not updating God's "revelations"???
ALL: Keep in mind that...
...Joseph Smith's first vision found in the Pearl of Great Price Mormon “scripture” wasn't determined as “official scripture” until 1875...almost 40 years after the fact...
...and Brigham Young's D&C 136 didn't become “official” Mormon “scripture” until 74 years after the fact (1921)...
...Joseph F. Smith's D&C 138 didn't become “official” Mormon “scripture” until 62 years after the fact (1981).
For some reason, it takes the Mormon church between 40-74 years to determine if the Holy Ghost actually spoke thru one of its “prophets”...yet they keep promising a huge benefit is a “living prophet” who is on “real time” between God and man...if God's message can't be “officially” confirmed until 40-74 years after the fact, what do they do in the interim?
****************
Other "references" found in the Bible...
* Paul references in Col. 4:16 a "letter from Laodicea." A fraudulent "letter from Laodicea" turned up in the 4th century, but no scholars reference it as authentic...and though the early church fathers make over 36,000 New Testament citations, including every book and almost every verse in the New Testament, no epistle of the Laodiceans is cited by them.
I mean, c'mon, DU...Jesus did many other things not recorded in the Gospels -- John says that in John 20:31; 21:25...just because we don't have an exhaustive comprehensive explanation of everything Jesus did in His public life, doesn't mean the four Gospels are "incomplete"...does it???
And again, I appeal to your consistency...or rather, your lack of it...
* I suppose now that you're going to tell us, DU, that just because Paul cited pagan poets (see Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12) that they are "missing" books of the Bible, too, eh?
* Yes, the book of Jude cites the Book of Enoch; that doesn't mean that the Book of Enoch has 100% truth; or 100% accuracy; or that 100% of it was divinely inspired. Sure, there was a truth in Enoch's book for Jude to deem worthy of it as authentic. That doesn't give 100% of the content an endorsement that it was to be in the Bible...anymore than if a General Authority positively cites C.S. Lewis in a message that future Mormons want to plant in the D&C, that C.S. Lewis should then be considered as a "missing chapter" of the D&C!!!
Hey DU, if the mormon god feels these should be scripture - let your mormon god tell your prophet. Otherwise it is a non-starter and just another mormon assault on the integrity of the bible.
Also there appeared a stretch to incorporate some other's apologetic concerning OT Apocrypha as diversion, to cast doubt, to then open up a crack into which Joey Smith's stuff can be squiggled in, gaining entry.
Generalization is common enough and can be acceptable, but inexactitude can hide much, when one get's crafty with it.