D&C 91

As the Prophet was translating portions of the Bible, he came across multiple books known as the Apocrypha. In his day, these books were controversial as to whether they should be included in the bible or not. Elder James E. Talmage provided this history -

"The Apocrypha embrace a number of books of doubtful authenticity, though such have been at times highly esteemed. Thus, they were added to the Septuagint, and for a time were accorded recognition among the Alexandrine Jews. However, they have never been generally admitted, being of uncertain origin. They are not quoted in the New Testament. The designation apocryphal, meaning hidden, or secret, was first applied to the books by Jerome. The Roman Church professes to acknowledge them as scripture, action to this end having been taken by the Council of Trent (1546); though doubt as to the authenticity of the works seems still to exist even among Roman Catholic authorities. The Sixth article in the Liturgy of the Church of England defines the orthodox view of the church as to the meaning and intent of Holy Scripture and, after specifying the books of the Old Testament which are regarded as canonical, proceeds in this wise: 'And the other books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the church cloth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet cloth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:—The Third Book of Esdras; The Fourth Book of Esdras; The Book of Tobias; The Book of Judith; The rest of the Book of Esther; The Book of Wisdom; Jesus, the Son of Sirach; Baruch the Prophet; The Song of the Three Children; The Story of Susanna; Of Bel and the Dragon; The Prayer of Manasses; The First Book of Maccabees; The Second Book of Maccabees.'" (James E. Talmage, AF, pp. 244-45.)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie paints a picture of the status of these writings in the Prophets day -

"The word 'apocrypha' generally means 'secret' or 'hidden' or 'of dubious authenticity.' 'The Apocrypha' refers to fourteen books which were part of early Greek and Latin versions of the Bible but were not part of the Hebrew Bible.

The apocrypha was included in the King James Version of 1611, but by 1629 some English Bibles began to appear without it, and since the early part of the 19th century it has been excluded from almost all protestant Bibles. The American Bible Society, founded in 1816, has never printed the Apocrypha in its Bibles, and the British and Foreign Bible Society has excluded it from all but some pulpit Bibles since 1827.

From these dates it is apparent that controversy was still raging as to the value of the Apocrypha at the time the Prophet began his ministry. Accordingly, in 1833, while engaged in revising the King James Version by the spirit of revelation, the Prophet felt impelled to inquire of the Lord as to the authenticity of the Apocrypha." (Bruce R. McConkie, MD, p. 41.)

The prophet inquired of the Lord on how he should proceed and received the the following revelation -

"...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." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 91:1 - 2)

And -

"...whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 91:4 - 6)

As one ponders the development of the Bible as we know it, few really understand how much of the compilations and translation were by the decisions of man which in itself could remove or modify truth. That being the case, is there any dispute that we need prophets today?