The LDS Position on the King James Version

[consiglieri]

It is my understanding that the new (and improved) CHI about a month ago officially reaffirms the LDS Church's position that the King James Version of the Bible, and no other, should be used in all Church meetings.

Although I find this short-sighted on a number of levels, I wanted to post here to mention the irony of it.

The LDS Church is founded on the proposition that the King James Version of the Bible is neither complete nor inerrant, a proposition that has caused (and continues to cause) a great deal of wrath from non-LDS Christians.

LDS, as much as any other Christian denomination, have evinced great interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which pushed back one-thousand years the earliest Old Testament manuscripts available--manuscripts obviously not available to the KJV translators.

There are many Christians, whom some term fundamentalist, in that they believe the Bible is the perfect and complete Word of God.

Within this fundamentalist group is an even more conservative subgroup--those Christians who believe that only the King James Version is the perfect and complete Word of God, and that no others need apply.

The strange thing to me is that whereas Mormons come down on the other side of the spectrum from the KJV-only crowd, we have nevertheless come round full circle to where we seem to be promoting the same thing.

Any thoughts as to why this might be so?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

Because it's a literary treasury, full of beautiful passages and some of the most well-known phrases in the English language?

And it's doctrinally "close enough"?

[Log]

I would assume it is because to switch away from the KJV would break biblical allusions within the restoration scriptures reliant on the language of the KJV, and the KJV is almost unversally available.

[SilverKnight]

Any thoughts as to why this might be so?

A classic case of tradition becoming doctrine.

[bluebell]

Perhaps it's because all of the English lesson manuals use the KJV.

[Libs]

LDS footnotes are all on the KJV.

[bluebell]

LDS footnotes are all on the KJV.

Good point.

[Lightbearer]

It is my understanding that the new (and improved) CHI about a month ago officially reaffirms the LDS Church's position that the King James Version of the Bible, and no other, should be used in all Church meetings.

Any thoughts as to why this might be so?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think they did it just to piss you off.

[Obiwan]

Because until we come out with out "own" edition by further revelation, it by revelation is the BEST version there is which expounds the Restored spirit and gospel of Christ.

We don't need to get into the doctrines of men and being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine by using different some supposedly "better" versions. Frankly, there is no such thing even. While other versions do better in some areas, they fail in others. The KJV does the best of ALL, portraying the spirit and intent closest to the pure Gospel. Translation mistakes and otherwise doesn't change the fact that we can know the "gospel" and "spirit" as intended through the book, and frankly none other.

It's the version for "English" speakers.... Until the Lord says otherwise, that's what we use.

You really make me shake my head sometimes consig....

[David T]

Because until we come out with out "own" edition by further revelation, it by revelation is the BEST version there is which expounds the Restored spirit and gospel of Christ.

Well, for what it's worth, BYU is currently at work on their own new translation rendition of the New Testament, due to begin coming out in parts next year, as I understand it, with rumblings that an OT translation rendition is next.

[frankenstein]

I only speak and read English, but, I have been explain one "sacred" phrase in as translated to English from Spanish. The spanish meaning of this particular phrase is much more uplifting and faith promoting than the English version.

I tend think English is on the lower end of languages that should be considered for relaying religious messages.

[John Larsen]

What I find most fascinating about the KJV is that it has been a moving target for 500 years. It has been tweaked and twittered with since it was first published in 1611. Language has been changed and updated, words added and deleted, etc. I doubt there are even 10 or 20 LDS who could tell you which version of the King James Version the Church uses. I certainly don't know how they arrived at the text--but a casual look at some 1611 scans will show you the differences. So the instance on using the KJV as some sort of rubric is problematic in and of itself, and that isn't even dealing with the idea the the KJV isn't even a translation in the first place.

The simple reason is that going with an updated text undercuts many of Joseph Smith's "revelations" and in particular his "translation" of the bible.

[Pahoran]

What I find most fascinating about the KJV is that it has been a moving target for 500 years. It has been tweaked and twittered with since it was first published in 1611.

FWIW, 1611 is 399 years ago. How does that round up to 500 years? Exaggerate muchu?

The simple reason is that going with an updated text undercuts many of Joseph Smith's "revelations" and in particular his "translation" of the bible.

That would be true, if we understand that "simple" is Larsenspeak for "most polemically useful."

Regards,

Pahoran

[ELF1024]

Well, for what it's worth, BYU is currently at work on their own new translation rendition of the New Testament, due to begin coming out in parts next year, as I understand it, with rumblings that an OT translation rendition is next.

I've been looking forward to it. I think it should be interesting.

[John Larsen]

FWIW, 1611 is 399 years ago. How does that round up to 500 years? Exaggerate muchu?

That would be true, if we understand that "simple" is Larsenspeak for "most polemically useful."

Regards,

Pahoran

Oops, your right. 400 years not 500 years.

[jadams_4242]

It is my understanding that the new (and improved) CHI about a month ago officially reaffirms the LDS Church's position that the King James Version of the Bible, and no other, should be used in all Church meetings.

Although I find this short-sighted on a number of levels, I wanted to post here to mention the irony of it.

The LDS Church is founded on the proposition that the King James Version of the Bible is neither complete nor inerrant, a proposition that has caused (and continues to cause) a great deal of wrath from non-LDS Christians.

LDS, as much as any other Christian denomination, have evinced great interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which pushed back one-thousand years the earliest Old Testament manuscripts available--manuscripts obviously not available to the KJV translators.

There are many Christians, whom some term fundamentalist, in that they believe the Bible is the perfect and complete Word of God.

Within this fundamentalist group is an even more conservative subgroup--those Christians who believe that only the King James Version is the perfect and complete Word of God, and that no others need apply.

The strange thing to me is that whereas Mormons come down on the other side of the spectrum from the KJV-only crowd, we have nevertheless come round full circle to where we seem to be promoting the same thing.

Any thoughts as to why this might be so?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

if not the kjv then what? We have enought anti,s do we want more? No,; we rely on the spirit; in this church spirit testifies of everything....Everything! need we even try to appease those whom try to deconstruct? i think not..we let the spirit prove all.

[The_Monk]

Philip Barlow (Oxford, Mormons and the Bible) knows why. I read his lengthy article on how the Church came to adopt the KJV recently. Link to part 1.

From those I've talked to, the statement in the handbook is nothing new. It basically paraphrases the Church's statement on the KJV from... 1982? 86?

[David T]

It's been taught in the Church that it's easier for the spirit to testify of truth when the message is presented simply, and clearly, and understood. I think it's unfortunate, then, that the study of a majority of English language readers of the words of the Old Testament Prophets is impeded by 400 year old archaisms, which, in some places, are downright unintelligible.

[John Larsen]

It's been taught in the Church that it's easier for the spirit to testify of truth when the message is presented simply, and clearly, and understood. I think it's unfortunate, then, that the study of a majority of English language readers of the words of the Old Testament Prophets is impeded by 400 year old archaisms, which, in some places, are downright unintelligible.

I think the KJV seems less dirty because we have forgotten all of the 17th Century euphemisms for sex and other unmentionables. That's a check in the positive column.

[David T]

I think the KJV seems less dirty because we have forgotten all of the 17th Century euphemisms for sex and other unmentionables. That's a check in the positive column.

I understand most of the euphemisms are direct from the Hebrew. ('know', 'feet', 'waters', etc)

[TAO]

The reason is because

A) It is easier to discuss things in the chapel when we all have a single version of the Bible

B) The KJV is the most distributed version among LDS

C) As Libs pointed out, footnotes are some of the most useful things

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - www.kjvonly.org

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Obiwan]

What I find most fascinating about the KJV is that it has been a moving target for 500 years. It has been tweaked and twittered with since it was first published in 1611. Language has been changed and updated, words added and deleted, etc. I doubt there are even 10 or 20 LDS who could tell you which version of the King James Version the Church uses. I certainly don't know how they arrived at the text--but a casual look at some 1611 scans will show you the differences. So the instance on using the KJV as some sort of rubric is problematic in and of itself, and that isn't even dealing with the idea the the KJV isn't even a translation in the first place.

The simple reason is that going with an updated text undercuts many of Joseph Smith's "revelations" and in particular his "translation" of the bible.

You falsely assume "translation/relevation" is "linear" that the "words" are what matter rather than the "meanings/principles" behind the words. Revelation doesn't always come word for word the exact same each and every time. Why do you think the lost 116 pages were not "re-done"? It's because if it was it would clearly show differences, thus the important stuff was included elsewhere.

Also, the reason the reason the BOM has Bible parts is because it was already extant and Joseph likely had a photographic memory or the Lord gave where necessary the exact words that were already available to man.

The KJV isn't good because it is perfect, it's good because it transcribes the messages and spirit the Lord wishes for us.

Personally I think that is much more important than the "wisdom" and "intellect" of men creating their million and one versions and various opinions thereof.

[John Larsen]

You falsely assume "translation/relevation" is "linear" that the "words" are what matter rather than the "meanings/principles" behind the words. Revelation doesn't always come word for word the exact same each and every time. Why do you think the lost 116 pages were not "re-done"? It's because if it was it would clearly show differences, thus the important stuff was included elsewhere.

Also, the reason the reason the BOM has Bible parts is because it was already extant and Joseph likely had a photographic memory or the Lord gave where necessary the exact words that were already available to man.

The KJV isn't good because it is perfect, it's good because it transcribes the messages and spirit the Lord wishes for us.

Personally I think that is much more important than the "wisdom" and "intellect" of men creating their million and one versions and various opinions thereof.

It transcribes the message the Lord wished for in 1611, in 1830 or 2010? Because the language has changed and it can't be all three.

[Ceeboo]

Why do you think the lost 116 pages were not "re-done"?

Better not! (The question probably wasn't adressed to me anyway)

Peace,

Ceeboo