The LDS Position on the King James Version

[emeliza]

Why would the Church "have" to pick a Bible to be the standard?

They don't 'have' to pick a Bible to be the standard, but it sure does help. In my former church growing up we used the Revised Standard Version (RSV). At some point the church (not our local congregation, but the church as a whole) changed to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). I didn't have a copy of that and didn't have the money (was a teen and Bibles were expensive) to switch. Our congregation didn't have the money to go and get new Bibles for all the pews either (each pew has 2 Bibles and there are probably 28 pews). So the lecturn would read from the NRSV and the congregation could follow along in the RSV. I will tell you right now it sucked. Even to this day when I visit I hate that I don't have the same Bible to follow along with. There is enough of a difference between the NRSV and the RSV to confuse someone when trying to listen and follow along.

I guess with that experience in mind I am glad that the LDS Church uses the KJV and that it doesn't keep changing the words. I guess I always figured it was for two reasons. One, economic and two, follows more closely the language of our other scriptures.

[mnn727]

Any thoughts as to why this might be so?

Because the method of picking Church leaders insures that people who have been reading/using the KJV version for 40 or 50 years or longer make the decisions.

I think they did it just to piss you off.

Probably

[bluebell]

They don't 'have' to pick a Bible to be the standard, but it sure does help. In my former church growing up we used the Revised Standard Version (RSV). At some point the church (not our local congregation, but the church as a whole) changed to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). I didn't have a copy of that and didn't have the money (was a teen and Bibles were expensive) to switch. Our congregation didn't have the money to go and get new Bibles for all the pews either (each pew has 2 Bibles and there are probably 28 pews). So the lecturn would read from the NRSV and the congregation could follow along in the RSV. I will tell you right now it sucked. Even to this day when I visit I hate that I don't have the same Bible to follow along with. There is enough of a difference between the NRSV and the RSV to confuse someone when trying to listen and follow along.

I guess with that experience in mind I am glad that the LDS Church uses the KJV and that it doesn't keep changing the words. I guess I always figured it was for two reasons. One, economic and two, follows more closely the language of our other scriptures.

Excellent points.

It would be annoying if i couldn't follow along when scriptures were discussed in church and it would be very expensive to replace everyone's scriptures in the family all at once if the church called for a change.

[mnn727]

Excellent points.

It would be annoying if i couldn't follow along when scriptures were discussed in church and it would be very expensive to replace everyone's scriptures in the family all at once if the church called for a change.

"Brothers and Sisters in 12 months the Church will be changing to the XXX version of the Bible" Problem solved.

[mnn727]

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....

Spoken like someone who has never actually STUDIED out of any other version of the Bible

[mnn727]

This, I think, is one of the main points against continued mandatory use of the KJV.

The LDS Church promotes scripture study and understanding, including the Bible.

Why then should we enforce use of the most inaccessible and difficult to understand version?

If understanding the message of the scriptures is paramount, mandating use of the KJV is a strange way to go about it.

How many people understand Shakespeare today without a good deal of prep work in order to become familiar with Elizabethan English?

I see the insistence on KJV-only as an impediment to understanding the Bible.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Wow -- Mark this day on the calendar; I agree with Consig 100%

Perhaps the KJV is the reason convert baptisms are slowing down. Frankly the only time I open the KJV is at Church, it almost impossible to understand bythe average person UNLESS you grew up with it and read it on a regular basis -- and even then its hard.

[bluebell]

"Brothers and Sisters in 12 months the Church will be changing to the XXX version of the Bible" Problem solved.

That doesn't really solve the issues. It would still be expensive for families to change, all the church lesson manuals, from sunday school to institute, would need to be replaced, and we would lose all the footnotes and cross-referencing (which isn't always great but i would still miss a LOT if they weren't there).

Obviously the issues aren't insurmountable, but neither are they as simple to overcome as just declaring a change and that's that.

[emeliza]

"Brothers and Sisters in 12 months the Church will be changing to the XXX version of the Bible" Problem solved.

I do believe economically it would be a millions of dollars to upgrade and get the church material, missions, familys and other ares up to date if they tried to change. On top of that, the KJV isn't that hard to understand. I didn't grow up with it and I can figure it out generally. The few times I haven't been able to, I can look it up in a study guide or I can look up the cross references or google it even.

I understand that many people like other formats, but if you do, buy another one for personal use. You can probably get a free KJV from the Church if you want one then. They are also very inexpensive thru LDS.org. Sounds like the more reasonable answer than spending millions of dollars to 'upgrade' just so that you might have to 'upgrade' again in a few years when the American English language changes again what words mean to some degree.

[cinepro]

"Brothers and Sisters in 12 months the Church will be changing to the XXX version of the Bible" Problem solved.

Wait, why is the Church switching to a XXX version of the Bible!

[cinepro]

I do believe economically it would be a millions of dollars to upgrade and get the church material, missions, familys and other ares up to date if they tried to change.

Maybe they could use non-tithing funds to pay for it...?

Obviously, any change is costly and uncomfortable. The question is, is it worth it? If, in the end, we end up with a more correct Bible that is clearer and easier to read, would that be worth the trouble and expense?

And what if they didn't make an official switch, but just encouraged members and leaders to choose from a few different translations? What would a Gospel Doctrine class be like if people had a few different translations handy? Would it be chaos? Would people learn from one another as they compared different versions? Would the version that most closely approximates peoples' individual opinions be the preferred one?

This thread almost makes me want to acquire a different translation and bring to Gospel Doctrine classes next year (along with my KJV) so I can study out of both as we go through the New Testament. It might be an interesting exercise...

[emeliza]

And what if they didn't make an official switch, but just encouraged members and leaders to choose from a few different translations? What would a Gospel Doctrine class be like if people had a few different translations handy? Would it be chaos? Would people learn from one another as they compared different versions? Would the version that most closely approximates peoples' individual opinions be the preferred one?

I am not sure it would work too well, but maybe I just don't like change. I mean, generally speaking most places don't like having two manuals over the same subject that are just slightly different. It causes squabbles over things that don't really matter.

I still think it would be better to use the same 'company wide' and then if you want more on a personal level, look for more. We do that with our computers are work (generally speaking). Most people have the same type of computer here. This way the 'experts' can go around and work on them and it is the same everywhere. This way when my neighbor has a question about her computer, I can go help since I have the same computer to use. If we all had different computers, I am not sure I would even be able to change the font on my neighbors very well.

[David T]

That doesn't really solve the issues. It would still be expensive for families to change

Well, 30 years ago, all the families in the Church were instructed to change and purchase the new editions. Recently, Spanish Speaking saints were asked to do the same thing with their brand new LDS edition of the Bible - which was different than the 'authorized' translation they had been using.

My suspicion is that when the Church does eventually change Bibles, it will go the Jehovah's Witness route and present their own translation (perhaps the in the works BYU-R? ), which can then be translated from English into all the languages in the Church, allowing all languages to have an authorized edition of the Bible with notes, etc. Say what you want about the JW, the Watchtower was brilliant in this respect, whatever you may think of the merits of the Translation aside.

I also expect that in at least the initial stages of a 'changeover', that Parallel Bibles will be published, with the New Rendition on one column, and the KJV on the other to assist in the transition, as well as for historical and cross-referencing purposes.

This is actually the best possible scenario I can think of, and hope and pray for it

[daz2]

I am not aware of a revelation that states that the KJV is the best version.

Phil Barlow spells out pretty well the development over time of the Church's commitment to the current KJV version we use, and most of it is attributable to J. Reuben Clark.

I would note that the new bible edition for the church in Spanish uses old fashioned Spanish.

I think Mormons like to be a peculiar people. We use a thee/thou form in prayer that most of the rest of the Christian world has abandoned, and call it the "special language" of prayer. As fewer and fewer Christian churches use the KJV, we will begin calling the language of the KJV the "special language" of scripture. That will also distinguish long time members of the Church who will have become fluent in those special languages of prayer and scripture from newer members or investigators who will need a translator (or perhaps, like Catholics pre Vatican II can just enjoy the spirit of the meeting without understanding the words).

[David T]

I think Mormons like to be a peculiar people.

And if they moved to a modern translation, they'd realize they're not supposed to be strange (how the word peculiar is understood today), they're supposed to be a chosen/purchased people, the new lineage of Christ.

Of course, then we couldn't have that excuse for why Mormons do weird and strange things

1 Peter 2:9, KJV:

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

1 Peter 2:9, NRSV:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God

[consiglieri]

The Japanese, on the other hand, use formal language in their prayers.

Ten no Otosama . . .

[Teelea]

I think Mormons like to be a peculiar people. We use a thee/thou form in prayer that most of the rest of the Christian world has abandoned, and call it the "special language" of prayer. As fewer and fewer Christian churches use the KJV, we will begin calling the language of the KJV the "special language" of scripture.

Agreed. As older manuscripts have come forth, the status of the KJV as the "most correct" version has come into question (and even Joseph Smith preferred the German version as the most accurate he had come across). The main reasons for staying with the KJV seem to be tradition, keeping the language somewhat in conformity with the style in the Book of Mormon, and preserving "sacred speech" in a world where even the churches are becoming more modernized, casual, and colloquial, even slangy. (The Message Bible, anyone?)

[Lightbearer]

Why stop with the KJV of the Bible? Why not "modernize" the language of all the scriptures: The Book of Mormon, D&C and the Pearl of Great Price? Or better yet, why not just make all the scriptures into Graphic Novels (wait they did that already... but it is a version for children or illiterate adults)or make DVD dramatizations and then we would not even need to read. I mean reading is so hard especially that Old English crap, why not just have scholars tell us what they mean so we don't have to read or study... I mean studying is hard.

I do not understand the drive for trashing the KJV, I mean it seems like a mainia with many on this board. But I will give you my feeling, when I hear other versions read they do not "sound" like scripture to me... I guess it is because I don't trust the other translators, if the Church did produce one that was approved by the First Presidency I would have no problem... but until that time, other versions might be interesting especially if it validates modern day revelation, otherwise I have no desire to use them as a standard work. In fact this quote comes to mind:

(JST, LUKE 11:53 " Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge, the fulness of the scriptures; ye enter not in yourselves into the kingdom; and those who were entering in, ye hindered."

[Libs]

Why stand against something that might increase understanding of the scriptures?

Many of the modern translations are not only easier to read, but I have heard many of them are more accurate renderings from the original Greek and Hebrew.

If I were still LDS, I would love to see all LDS scriptures updated to modern English.

[Mudcat]

My suspicion is that when the Church does eventually change Bibles, it will go the Jehovah's Witness route and present their own translation (perhaps the in the works BYU-R? ), which can then be translated from English into all the languages in the Church, allowing all languages to have an authorized edition of the Bible with notes, etc. Say what you want about the JW, the Watchtower was brilliant in this respect, whatever you may think of the merits of the Translation aside.

If I were LDS, I would imagine I would be in agreement that it wouldn't be the adoption of another available translation.

Though I don't have dog in the race, I am dubious that there will ever actually be such a translation offered. To offer a better translation of the Bible, leaves the archaic text of the Book of Mormon sticking out like a sore thumb.

The retranslation or perhaps "rephrasing" of the BoM would be the 400lb. Gorilla in the room at the point.

IMO, the only thing that would make sense would be to address both in tandem. Offering a better translation of the Bible seems easy enough, but alone it leaves one still dealing with outdated language in the Standard Works.

[blackstrap]

My edition of the BofM in Spanish from 40 years ago is WAY different than the current one which reflects the modern usage. How is the German translation of the BofM done? High German,low German , modern,16th century???

[Libs]

My edition of the BofM in Spanish from 40 years ago is WAY different than the current one which reflects the modern usage. How is the German translation of the BofM done? High German,low German , modern,16th century???

That's an good question. How does the Book of Mormon translate into other languages? And the KJV of the Bible, for that matter.

[mapman]

Why stop with the KJV of the Bible? Why not "modernize" the language of all the scriptures: The Book of Mormon, D&C and the Pearl of Great Price?

The KJV is not the original Bible. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. For us the original to the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price is English because we either don't have the originals or it was originally English. There is no way for us to retranslate them. They also actually have more modern English and are easier to understand than the KJV.

[Lightbearer]

The KJV is not the original Bible. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. For us the original to the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price is English because we either don't have the originals or it was originally English. There is no way for us to retranslate them. They also actually have more modern English and are easier to understand than the KJV.

I am well aware of that... my point was being sarcastic about the big deal being made here about the KJV being so inferior even though the First Presidency and the Twelve seem to think it fine. I suppose the way to look at it by those who desire to use other versions is to use whatever they want in their personal study, but if they are called to teach in a Church setting then be prepared to use the KJV in spite of it's hard to understand language.

[David T]

But I will give you my feeling, when I hear other versions read they do not "sound" like scripture to me...

the Lord doesn't answer my prayers in King James English. when the living Apostles and Prophets speak, they don't speak in King James English. When I was a Missionary and spoke under the influence of the spirit, I didn't speak in King James English.

I would be careful in limiting what the Word of the Lord sounds like to the word choices of 400 year old crown scholars.

I have been highly edified and inspired by clear renderings of the words of the ancient prophets in a way that would not have been understandable in certain passages of the KJV as it stands. If the Lord is able to make His voice heard in translations of the Bible and Book of Mormon into languages all over the world, he is quite capable of surpassing boundaries of tradition to speak in our own language, according to our understanding.

For Joseph, King James English 'sounded' like scripture, because that's all that there was. Naturally when he attempted to put into writing the concepts and knowledge that had been revealed to Him, he would couch it in what sounded like scripture to him. Interesting enough, if you look at the manuscripts, the original forms of many of the revelations had much more archaisms - Sidney Rigdon 'updated' many of them.

The Book of Mormon has already been updated - the 1981 edition has removed several archaisms and odd grammatical structures and features.

Joseph would be the last one to insist that scripture stay in a solid, unchanging form. He constantly updated and changed his revelations in the D&C, the JST, and even editions of the Book of Mormon while he was alive. Scripture was meant to be living, updated according to new light and understanding, understood, and have the greatest impact and effect for the current generation of Saints.

[David T]

I suppose the way to look at it by those who desire to use other versions is to use whatever they want in their personal study, but if they are called to teach in a Church setting then be prepared to use the KJV in spite of it's hard to understand language.

Which is exactly what I do. Although, if I am teaching a passage in class that it is clear nobody understands, I have been known to say, "Here's the way another translation rendered that", read it, and then see the light of understanding come into their eyes.

Here's a great blog entry of someone who needed to do the same thing, with great impact.The example it gives is perfect. (It also points out that the NIV is even cited from time to time in general conference to clarify a point).