The 8th article of faith says “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
Brigham Young once said that “if [the Bible] be translated incorrectly, and there is a scholar on the earth who professes to be a Christian, and he can translate it any better than King James’s translators did it, he is under obligation to do so.” ( Journal of Discourses 14:226–27)
You would think with a statements like these, that Mormons would be at the forefront of biblical study, since it affects what we actually believe and not believe in the bible. We would be leaders in higher criticism, and have our own translation of the Bible that would rival the Book of Mormon as “the most correct of any book on this Earth”. We definitely have scholars that can translate better than the KJV translators did. In fact “Google translate” could probably do a better job at translating the best Greek manuscript we have now compared to what the KJV translators did with what they had to work with.
So where does this leave us? Recently BYU professor Thomas Wayment published a New Testament translation for Latter-Day Saints which Rick B. talked about here on Wheat & Tares. This is a good first step, as it exposes members of the church to the idea that “translated correctly” has real ramifications as we study the bible. In fact the publisher made him put the BY quote referenced above on the front page of his book. I’m guessing the quote was inserted to appease any “KJV only” members from revolting when they saw the book at Deseret Books.
Is there a limit to what an orthodox member of the church can believe about what is commonly accepted in higher criticism of the bible? For example, most scholars date the book of John to c. 90-100, and obviously not written by “John the Apostle”, yet on page 15 of the Come Follow Me Sunday School lesson manual, it says referring to the Book of John:
John was a disciple of John the Baptist and later became one of the first followers of Jesus Christ and one of His Twelve Apostles.
Another example is the doxology in the Lords Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” It is not contained in Luke’s version, neither is it present in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. Most scholars do not consider it part of the original text of Matthew and modern translations generally omit it. This obviously presents a problem for the LDS student as the doxology is found in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 13:13)
Brother Wayment also agrees the doxology is not original to Matthew. His explanation on how it could have made it into the Book Of Mormon is quoted here from Rick B’s Mormon Tangents podcast:
You have Joseph who speaks in King James Bible. That’s who he is. That’s his world. If he were to write an account of his property holdings, there would be King James Bible language in it. If he told you how to build a wagon, he would have King James Bible in it. And that’s just who he is. And so, I think sometimes as Latter-day Saints, we have to be charitable that Joseph’s language comes through there and that’s hard. I know that some Book of Mormon scholars will not appreciate me saying that, but my own view as a Bible scholar is it’s the only way to account for that type of stuff in the Book of Mormon. I could see myself confronting Joseph and saying, “Did you know when you did second Nephi 2 that you have some really strong language from Corinthians in that or Romans?” (which are both there) and him saying, “I didn’t know that.”
These are just two of many issues that arise when a faithful LDS student starts to study the bible in depth. My question is, can a faithful member dive deep into the history of the bible and keep their faith? Is Brother Wayment the first crack in the dam, and can we expect more bible scholarship like this to be forthcoming? Is there a middle way answer to the above issues and all the others that will arise? Have issues like those listed above kept the LDS church from developing an official new translation of the Bible?
Wheat & Tares 
Bishop Bill has posed a good question.
I would also ask that if the Bible is not translated correctly, then the Church needs to be specific and state which texts fit into that category. Then the Church needs to identify the substantive errors in the Bible. In other words, what difference do such errors really make? Be specific.
If it can’t do that, then it sounds like a hallow position regarding the Bible with the intent simply to elevate the BOM above the Bible.
In my opinion a good study of the Old Testament, an understanding how God has spoken to prophets in the past, an understanding of the context of the Bible stories and how they were influenced and compiled, and a little humility on our part is the only cure to the major plague of disbelief that is facing many LDS people.
We have the whole learning thing backwards. We start with the premise that what we learn in the temple and the Pearl of Great Price is the literal history and then try and proof text the scriptures to fit that model. In my opinion this robs us of appreciating and understanding the context of how the ancient house of Israel worshiped Jehovah.
I have a hard time even finding our current plan of salvation anywhere in the Book of Mormon. If Celestial Marriage is so damn important why did Jesus not mention it one time? I can see the argument that popes and evil minions of Satan took it out of the Bible, but why didn’t he mention temple covenants, marriage, and exaltation to the Nephites?
Bokovoy’s book on authoring the Old Testament is a great resource. Yes, you have to throw away a lot of old beliefs and it pokes many holes in the BOM, but it is a good way to see how God speaks through prophets and it allows me to reconcile how God speaks through prophets today. I also just bought Harrel’s book “This is my Doctrine”. I am just getting started on it, but am loving it. I think Stapley’s work is amazing too. The church has the tools and the people to work this out if they would just bite the bullet and do it. They have shown a willingness to throw BY under the bus, but are extremely hesitant to make JS a little more vulnerable to higher criticism.
Excellent post and comments so far. Thank you. And thank you to those seeking after truth like Brother Wayment who are willing to be open-minded, seek, study, and then speak out to help reveal more light to us!
“My question is, can a faithful member dive deep into the history of the bible and keep their faith?”
I think when a person embarks on the journey of study, they don’t know where they are going to end up. They might have a destination in mind, but if they are really trying to learn something new then their journey is an exploration in an undiscovered country. They may arrive at a deeper, abiding faith, or they may challenge or even ultimately reject their testimony.
“We would be leaders in higher criticism, and have our own translation of the Bible that would rival the Book of Mormon as “the most correct of any book on this Earth”. We definitely have scholars that can translate better than the KJV translators did. ”
Last I counted there are at least 57 different versions of the Bible in English, and I would hazard a good guess that they were probably all done by men and women who one might well qualify as scholars and many of whom are/were excellent and devout scholars. And generally, they were all motivated to make as accurate and precisely correct a translation as they possibly could, and, I imagine, were subject to divine inspiration to one extent or another, and all, of them, because we are all human, made errors in translation of the text and errors in their reception of divine inspiration.
I believe that the Book of Mormon is not perfect either. And I am fine with them both being imperfect.
I think it is hubris to imagine that LDS scholars might or should put together the best or “most correct” translation of the Bible. And I think that it would be a highly problematic endeavor, given the imperfect nature of current human understanding of ancient history, language, culture etc etc etc. Excellent, dedicated, clear-eyed biblical scholars and scholars of ancient history are and will continue to disagree with each other with no ultimate arbiter of the exact truth in sight. That is the nature of scholarship. It always has been. And LDS scholars are no exception.
Perhaps the problem you are concerned about is not that we don’t have an LDS version, but that the KJV is inadequate, combined with an assumption that we are expected to only use the KJV.
Since I have heard passages from versions other than the KJV quoted in General Conference, I think it’s pretty clear that in your study of the Bible, in or out of church, using other versions when you find them helpful is fine. (And yes, there may be some members or local leaders who get flustered when you do, but that’s okay.)
I don’t believe that an LDS version would add much at all to the immense quantity of Biblical translation and commentary that is available already. It might be the case that, those who want an “ultimate authority” in regards to which version of a particular verse in the Bible is most correct, or which historical assumptions they have are incorrect, would feel more confident with an LDS version. But, knowing history and scholarship, such an “ultimate authority” version is impossible, simply due to the ever evolving understanding of history and scripture. It would, in time, be just as subject to controversy and scholarly disagreement as the other 57+ versions.
Zach, I can only think you are being facetious with the prescription outlined in the first paragraph of your comment. That process led me from belief to disbelief and right out of the church. Your citation of Bokovoy is another example, his study didn’t help to keep him in the church either. I figure the outcome for most members who follow that prescription will be to leave and that’s the reason those processes don’t appeal to church leadership.
Instead, the church is becoming more reliant on belief unattached to study. Watch the recent interview with Stephen Harper, a church historian, on the Mormon Channel (“How to Answer Questions About Church History”.) Besides not addressing a single issue about church history, his three approaches are to have faith everything works out in the end, address questions in the here and now with “I don’t know” and to have people start approaching church history the same way we approach Santa Claus (I’m not kidding- see the interview at about 19:30).
What I don’t understand is this seeming cultural dictate that we use only the KJV, and stigma against other translations. Honestly, I find the KJV very hard to understand and think that the bible makes more sense with more modern translations.
John W.
The last official church statement that I can find in regards to the use of the KJV is a statement by the First Presidency in 1979, when the edition with the more extensive index etc was made available.
That statement indicates that the KJV is the Englsh version used by the CJCLDS due to it’s history of use from the early days of the church and its aso due to its compatibility with the Book fo Mormon and subsequent modern revelation.
There is no prohibition in that document of the use of other versions, just an explanation of why the church publishes that one.
But human nature as it is…there are always people who wish for exact proscriptions or think that explanations are mandates, or who have an emotional need for exact declarations of what is allowed and what is not. That’s probably where the cultural dictate comes from. But it’s not church policy that you should not use other versions. That’s clear from the various Conference talks that cite other versions
I checked further. It seems that my knowledge of the fifty seven extant versions of the English Bible on my Bible Gateway app is just the tip of the iceberg. There have been 48 new English versions published since 1979 alone, according to Wikipedia’s list, not to mention the dozens created before then.
The current Handbook 2, section 21.1.7 (unfortunately?) says:
English-speaking members should use the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible. This edition includes the Topical Guide; footnotes; excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation; cross-references to other passages in the Bible and to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price; and other study aids. Although other versions of the Bible may be easier to read, in doctrinal matters, latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations.
Rockwell,
Fascinating. Everything in that Handbook statement is a taken directly from the 1979 First Presidency statment EXCEPT for the first sentence.
It may well be a prime example of the human tendency to create proscriptions where there is none, to which I referred earlier.
The 1979 statment is not as proscriptive. After the explanation of why the KJV is pubished by the church there is a statement about the use of scriptures. In relation to use of scriptures the statement is less proscriptive:
“We encourage all members to have their own copies of the complete standard works and to use them prayerfully in regular personal and family study, and in Church meetings and assignments.”
From “encourage” to have own copies of standard works to “should” use the KJV
I could not have asked for a better example of a classic morph into proscription.
The Handbook is being revised. Not sure they will catch that one.
Good thing the Handbook isn’t scripture.
Yeah Dave C. it is not an easy leap and you have to hold your nose along the way, but there is a way to make it work. I think you actually have to want it to work. I definitely understand people who just say no thanks and find another way to worship God or who give up on God altogether. As I looked at my options, I love the community too much and still find value in it. I am not being facetious.
Bokovoy is a great guy and he wrote that book while he was a faithful member of the church and employee of the church. The book is aimed to help people who come to understand the Pentateuch was not dictated by God to Moses, but was rather a messy compilation of a bunch of men seeing through glass darkly. Wayment did an interview with Givens on the Maxwell Institute and he said his shelf became a closet that he had to deal with. He came to understand that the composition of the New Testament is much messier than we would like to think. He had to reevaluate the way he thought about the man Jesus, he believes there was a Q source behind the four gospels, and says that many books attributed to Paul are definitely not his. I think these two examples are very applicable to Joseph Smith’s translations and the way our prophets today work. They are simply men with biases, prejudices, thoughts of their own who make stupid mistakes and say stupid things. God does not micro manage them. It is all just a huge mess.
Bokovoy left the church to support his gay child, not because he stopped believing. He has held these same beliefs for the past 20 years and had found a way to make it work quite nicely. I wish my kids could have a seminary teacher just like him.
When I was a mere lad back in the 1840’s, the 8th article of faith stated: We believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon (BoM) to be the word of God as far as they are translated correctly. This is consistent with the title page of the BoM that describes any errors (plural )to be from human sources, therefore condemn not the things of God. Apparently, Joseph Smith (Moroni ?) had less confidence in the inerrancy of this translations than his later disciples. Recent (last 50 years) “progression” in our understanding of the translation of the Book of Abraham bear this out and leaves rotten egg on the faces of Smith’s most devoted disciples.
The presence of the Lord’s prayer in 3rd Nephi has 3, yea even 4 problems. First, as described above, is that it includes the flourish at the end (For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever) that doesn’t appear in any of the earliest preserved copies of the many gospels in or out of what came to be the cannon of the New Testament and is obvious a later addition. Next, the BoM version omits “Thy Kingdom come” and it omits “give us this day our daily bread.” These seem to be pretty important . Finally, the BoM version does NOT omit the troublesome request for the Lord to not lead us into temptation as if this is a problem, that God tempts us. Maybe it is the reality that God does tempt us. But ministers sure spend barrels of time making excuses for this phrase.
The darkest critical voice in my head says that it was 3 centuries before most of this material in the New Testament was written down. The original Lord’s prayer was probably about 5- 10 minutes long. His disciples, who were mostly illiterate, remembered some of it and shared it with others many times. Even this was changed over the generations. The written versions under consideration are valuable although collaborative and bear little similarity to the original prayer. So almost every word of the Lord’s prayer in the BoM, supposedly heard and recorded immediately as the words fell from the lips of the Lord himself, within a year of the event described in the New Testament, is an outrageous anachronism and hence another farce.
In fairness, since most of our orthodox friends (whose names begin with letters of the alphabet A to Y) appear to be asleep, I offer, for and in behalf of them, the following litany of larded excuses for these 3, but not 4 problems. https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-is-the-lords-prayer-different-in-3-nephi Sorry, I’m not bright enough understand how this all helps; of course I wasn’t bright enough to get into BYU either.
I am less charita-babble than Bishop Bill. I don’t imagine Joseph Smith saying “I didn’t know that.” Joseph Smith does not appear to me to be that stupid, Yes, he was soaked in Biblical language and lore, but he knew when he was quoting scripture, when he was misquoting it or when he was winging it. He could quote accurately 14 chapters of Isaiah, if the head-in-a-hat version of the translation of the BoM is to be believed. I image him thinking people are so ignorant that they won’t notice it. It worked for over a century with the Book of Abraham. That might have been his experience out in the woods doing magic tricks and casting spells while searching for buried treasure all night with his New England farmer (former?) friends.
Note that the Church doesn’t just push the KJV, it pushes its own edition. I think that there is considerable desire that we lock ourselves into the whole shebang: the text itself, and “the Topical Guide; footnotes; excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation; cross-references to other passages in the Bible and to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price; and other study aids.” The statement that “latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations” is simply disingenuous. With the exception of blatantly partisan translations like the NIV, Latter-day revelation doesn’t really support one translation over another. It supports a literal reading of the Bible, yes, and because its language is echoed in the BoM, D&C, and PoGP it gives the appearance of being supported—but so far as actual doctrine is concerned, you can only come to that conclusion by extensive cherry-picking and proof-texting. Or should we accept the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) as being consistent with modern revelation?
The only thing that I would add is that the BoM is obviously written in KJV language. There are more accurate, easier to understand versions of the bible; the NASB being one. The problem would be the preference most members would have for a modern translation making the BoM by contrast more archaic and difficult to read in its KJV language.
Also, why wouldn’t the church just advocate for adoption of the JST bible?
I hadn’t heard that David Bokovoy had left the church. I knew he wasnt a seminary teacher anymore, and he may not be active like he used to, but isn’t he still a member of record?
Greggg (hope I got the right # of g’s) the Community of Christ owns the copyright for the JST bible – I think I got mine on Amazon. That’s probably a big part of why the church doesn’t push it – they don’t own or control it.
Mary Bliss, I did write that there is a cultural dictate, which of course is different from outright proscription by the leaders. Rockwell mentioned the handbook which clearly shows that the leaders discourage other translations confirming my point. Fact is, of you go to church and read bible passages from a different translation, people will look at you askance.
“You would think with a statements like these, that Mormons would be at the forefront of biblical study”
Mormons are not monolithic or predictable as a group. Some will study the bible, some will not. Mormonism is fairly unique in having modern revelation, leaving less time (or need) for arguing over who exactly wrote this book or that, and when was it written and what does it mean?
@John Jenkins, what do you mean about the NIV being “blatantly partisan?” Just curious. All translations are in some sense influenced by the agendas and prior commitments of their translators, but I don’t generally think of the NIV as a particularly egregious example. I mean, it’s definitely an evangelical translation, but I’m not sure about what you can point to in the text to say “here are the translation choices I have a problem with.” I mean, I am no big fan of the NIV, and I am generally sympathetic with suspicion regarding its evangelical background, but I don’t know of anything specific about it that is a problem.
Contrast to, say, the ESV, which is in many respects a lovely translation except that it comes from a definitely Reformed/Calvinist and gender-complimentarian standpoint, and you can point to dozens of specific (and arguably very questionable) translation choices that reflect the agenda of the translators.
The Wayment translation shows how easy it is to produce better LDS study materials than either the LDS curriculum materials or the LDS Study Bible provide. The LDS Bible study materials (footnotes, Bible dictionary) are more directed to helping the reader fit biblical texts into the LDS doctrinal scheme, with little real concern for teaching what the Bible text actually says or was intended to say by original authors or readers. When push comes to shove, LDS leaders have very little interest in actually increasing biblical or scriptural knowledge of the membership — but they are very interested in increasing faith in the institution (tithing) and its leadership (obedience).
In fairness, other denominations do some of the same things: they cherry pick bible verses to support their doctrines and ignore contrary texts. They try to strengthen the faith of their own members not only in God but also as members of this or that denomination and congregation. It’s just the LDS approach takes it to an extreme. I suspect that is in part due to LDS leadership having no formal training in theology or biblical studies. So they naturally deprecate expertise in those fields. But they’re great at finance, budgeting, marketing, and so forth.
“Blatantly partisan” was, in retrospect, too strong a way of phrasing it. I have heard that the NIV is not as well-regarded as once it was, even among evangelicals, but it’s not really fair to be snarky about it.
I’m thinking, however, less of the theology of the translation as the range of the intended audience. One of my touchstones for evaluating a translation is whether or not it includes the Apocrypha. I’ve never seen an NIV that did. Since Roman Catholics (among others) include at least parts of the Apocrypha in their canon, this says to me that the translators have little or no interest in making a Bible for anyone but Protestants. In that sense, it’s partisan. I prefer something more ecumenical.
In fairness, the KJV itself is itself decidedly partisan in that regard, although not as bald-faced about it as the Geneva or Douay–Rheims Bibles were. It includes the Apocrypha, yes, but definitely not as a concession to Catholics. It goes both ways, of course, even now. The Jerusalem Bible was aimed squarely at Catholics, for example. Indeed, the LDS edition of the KJV really isn’t targeted at anyone but Mormons.
John W.
Certainly.
The handbook says “should”.
On the other hand, the First Presidency message doesn’t say that and various apostles apparently are completely comfortable quoting other versions in General Conference, so they are obviously fine with using other versions in their gospel study and in their talks in church.
Where you live people look at you askance when you read from other versions.
So….Clearly reading from other versions is not looked at askance by various apostles but is looked at askance by members of your ward. So yes, as you said, this is a cultural phenomenon. It is not a commandment.
As John Jenkins points out, the argument about which version is better than which, or more accurate than another is a debate that has kept scholars busy for centuries and will continue to do so, therefore it is unlikely that we will change the askance lookers in our culture by trying to get them to see the shortcomings of the KJV or the helpful aspects of a different version. That just fuels a continuation of that never ending argument.
As you know, there are some who seem to see the use of a different version as a mote in your eye, and then beat you over the head with their beam, but if changing the culture is what you hope to do, I have found that engaging such individuals with defensiveness of my position or pointing out the failures in theirs generally doesn’t help change the culture at all. Instead it tends to polarize and increase intransigence in the culture instead.
So..how to change the culture? Looking back over my own introduction to other versions and my subsequent pleasure in including them in my study, I realize that it was through being aware of others’ of my acquaintance use of them. And not just any others, but rather individuals who were remarkable in their gentleness, kindness, delight in goodness, thoughtful insights, and total commitment to listening to others’ opinions with love and interest, whether or not they agreed with them. I decided that that if such disciples found worth in studying other versions, I would like to as well.
So, I suggest that such is the most effective way to change the culture in regards to this particular issue.
For some thoughts on the NIV, see here:
https://bycommonconsent.com/2008/10/25/niv/