The Church announced last month that the latest edition of the Handbook encourages English-speaking members to read different versions of the Bible in addition to the KJV. The announcement includes the line “Using multiple translations of the Bible is not new for the Church.” It isn’t surprising that they’d frame this change as not a change, given the Church’s never-ending insistence that it never changes, but of course it’s hilariously misleading given how devoted to being sola KJV-a we’ve been. But regardless of whether you think of this change as a big deal or just tidying things up around the edges, I did wonder at what changes in the Church we might see as a result of this new openness to more English Bible translations. I’m just a wild speculator, though, so I also recommend that if you want an actual historian’s take on how we got here and what the change might mean, you should read Matt Bowman’s post at BCC.
- Doctrinal questions, big ones, will be raised by differences in translations. What will we say about the virgin birth when Isaiah 7:14 says that “the young woman is with child” (NRSVue) rather than “a virgin shall conceive”? Or how about our favorite proof texts about the Great Apostasy? When I was a missionary in the American South decades ago, we were taught to cite 2 Thessalonians 2:3 about a “falling away” as a clear reference to the loss of priesthood authority on the Earth. But what if it’s just a “rebellion” (NRSVue)? That sounds much less dramatic.
- The potentially Mormon-unfriendly footnotes or supplemental material in non-Church-published Bibles might disturb at least some members, I’m thinking the most iron-rod-leaning ones at least. What if a Bible’s footnotes explain things in terms of the Trinity? The Eighth Article of Faith and “as far as it is translated correctly” will probably be a shield to such folks, but it also likely won’t be an impenetrable one.
- There will be pressure to write updated translations of all our other scriptures. All our extra scriptures quote the Bible, in some cases extensively. When we can read through 2 Nephi and just hop over to the another translation for the Isaiah quotes, it will raise the obvious question of why the surrounding text can’t also be rendered more clear.
- There will be more Bible reading and less reading of other scriptures. I’ve always found the Book of Mormon to have the easiest language of our four standard works, but if modern Bible translations are okay, then the Bible will easily leapfrog it to number one. I wonder how many other Mormons will feel the same, and will find themselves spending more of their limited scripture study time on a book they can understand more easily.
- I wonder if clearer language might make us all more disturbed by the violence and sex in the Bible. To be fair, we largely don’t read it much, certainly the Hebrew Bible we read less than any other scripture (at the very least, we read less of it for Sunday School), but perhaps when it’s made more accessible, we’ll read it more and find its bad parts even more bad.
- Dallin H. Oaks’s beloved proper prayer pronouns are on their way out. I mean, at least in my obviously anecdotal experience, it seems like a lot of people in my ward call God “you” in their prayers. I have to wonder if this might not be related to the Church spending so much energy trying to cozy up to evangelical Christians, and adopting their “Rah rah Jesus” approach in things like seminary music. In any case, encouraging us to read Bibles where characters don’t say thee/thou/thy/thine anymore seems like another step toward dropping them from our prayers entirely.
What do you think will happen with Church members reading a wider variety of English Bible translations? Will it really matter, or will it just be a blip? Do you agree or disagree with any of my guesses?
As for using archaic language, the same used in the KJ Bible, for prayer, yes it is on the way out and good riddance. My main objection to the church leaders insisting on us using archaic terms when addressing our Heavenly Father is that church leaders have the reasons backwards. They have their English wrong. In the talk linked above Oaks says that this special language of prayer is to show respect. He calls it the formal language. It is really the familiar form of address in old English. I have heard other church leaders saying the same, that we should not become too familiar with God, but honor him with the formal language of prayer. Except they have it backwards. “You” and “your” are the formal that show respect. Thee, thou, and thine are the familiar that show love. So, not only are our church leaders getting their English language screwed up, they are misunderstanding God. Think about it a minute. How do you address King Charles if you are ever so lucky as to have an audience. You would say “Your Majesty” or “your Highness.” That is the formal, has always been how you show respect to someone higher than you in social standing. You should not get familiar with King Charles, though, unless you are his family. How did Quakers address each other in order to show brotherhood, humility, and that we are all children of God. They used “thee” and “thou” to show familiarity or family relationship and addressed each other as “brother” and “sister.” And who is this God we are addressing? He is our father. So, we use the familiar to show love, closeness, humility, and even equality. Because as his children, we have the same social standing. Oh, wow, we are gods in embryo…..where have I heard that before, this idea that we will grow to be like Him?
Using special old English terms is only useful if you understand the language you are using and our general authorities do not understand old English, obviously. Those words are to remind us that our Father is a father, we are his family, and we love him. How amazing. Of all the words God could have asked us to use, He wanted us to call him father. Not King, although he is a king. God wanted to emphasize that there should be a close loving relationship, a father-child relationship. Not a king-subject relationship.
But our general authorities do not understand that when they say we should use the “formal language” of prayer, because that was not what it was about. We use the familiar language of prayer because we love God.
So, because those archaic men leading the church do not even understand the archaic language they are asking us to use, I think we should talk to God the same loving way we talk to our earthly father, our family, and those we love most. And in modern English that is the old English formal of “you” and “your”.
If Oaks had learned German instead of Latin for his law degree, he would have realized that in German you address God in the familiar that is the same as you use with close family. The formal is for strangers, royalty, the police, and shows respect. One does not use the language of love, because you are not supposed to love strangers, those above you in station, or the police. But you are supposed to love God.
Until our church leaders get that idea, that we are supposed to love God and that he loves us, I wish we would just drop the backwards crap and talk to God how we are comfortable. They are not using it to remind us of what it should be reminding us of, so what is the purpose? So they can teach us their incorrect understanding of God, or their incorrect understanding of archaic English?
I found that when I started using a modern translation, passages that I was so familiar with, suddenly took on new meaning. I had heard this set of words all my life, and thought I knew what they meant. But the modern words brought it new meaning. Imagery was given new life and clarity, with bright colorful pictures in my head where it had only been black and white and fuzzy.
I don’t think this changes all that much. The KJV is still the translation that the church will support with their infrastructure. That is, physical scriptures will still be KJV. And everyone already owns their nice scriptures in KJV. And everyone already memorized their favorite verses in KJV. The Gospel Library app will still use KJV, so if you’re reading the lesson through the app and click on the scripture it will still take you to KJV. Basically, KJV remains the preferred translation, and the one that is simplest to get to.
Those who want a better translation already have them. I’ve seen Wayment’s NT at church, and had Gospel Doctrine teachers quote the NIV and ESV. The change will give a modest bump to those who have thought about looking at other translations.
My seminary student daughter has been using the ESV in seminary. (It’s not the best translation, IMO, but it’s free and has a decent app.) Earlier in the year her seminary teacher wasn’t very impressed with her non-correlated usage. But suddenly, she’s back to being fully righteous!
I suspect the new Bible translations will raise many questions and spark some very lively conversations requiring (you guessed it!) correlation!
Why can’t we produce an LDS translation of the Bible that fully incorporates the JST and reflects current biblical scholarship?
Wouldn’t it be something to dust off our prophets, seers, and revelators and let them continue the work Joseph began during those hurried, persecuted years? I wonder if they can be spared from their boardrooms. I wonder if Oaks can check out the seee stone from Granite Mountain’s archives?
Picture it:
Dan McClellan chairing the linguistic scholarship.
Julie Smith tackling Mark.
Carol Lynn Pearson quietly removing the anti-female rhetoric and adding a little poetry to spruce it up while she’s at it.
Throw in every PhD we can find at BYU and beyond, plus LDS-friendly scholars across traditions.
Someone is going to need to call Margaret Toscano, apologize, and try to lure her onto the project. (One-two-three, “not it!”).
I nominate the entire ZD blog team to be on the theology committee.
And, are we going to invite Orson Scott Card for posterity?
It could be our biblical equivalent of the Joseph Smith Papers, a multi-decade, multi-discipline, international, interfaith effort.
With a $100B nest egg, we could throw any necessary amount at this and end up with a very nice result.
Revelation, committee work, meetings and footnotes. Dare we?
I agree that speaking like the KJV in prayers is already on the way out. Even the foremost living proponent of it, President Oaks, hasn’t to my knowledge spoken of it in general conference since the 1990s. Perhaps he’s more aware of the linguistic problems with it (which Anna outlines above), and its increasing irrelevance in a less English-centric church. I’m sure he’ll go to the grave believing it to be a superior way for English speakers to pray, but his silence on it suggests he’s conceded the point that it’s not worth preaching over the pulpit any longer.
I expect most members will still read their KJV most of the time, but good Sunday School teachers will bring in other translations when it makes points clearer, and the curious who look at other translations will come to understand the Bible better. Long term this all leads to better understanding and less literalism, but it could take a generation for the change to be felt.
I think church members are already reading the Bible more than they used to, which I would attribute primarily to the Come Follow Me curriculum. I rarely pay much attention to it, but many members seem to really like it and take it seriously. I think that has led more members to actually study the week’s reading for their personal or family study than in the past, which means 50% of the time it’s Bible focused. Having come of age under President Benson, I think my generation was under the impression that most of our personal scripture study should be focused primarily on the Book of Mormon, and I think it took the CFM curriculum to finally get more members to read other things. I do think new translations helps people read the Bible even more, though.
One of the effects of better translations is members no longer using bad translations as ammunition to prove points that the text doesn’t actually say. A mission companion of mine once wanted to use a verse from one of the letters to Timothy to prove to a Hare Krishna that in the latter days false prophets would be pushing vegetarianism. The verse in question sort of sounds like that if you hear it the right way, but the wording is very clunky (“forbidding to abstain from meats” sounds like a double negative, so what does it mean exactly?). The problem is that the Russian Bible we were using correctly translates the Greek word as “food” rather than “meat” as the KJV does. The guy we were teaching wasn’t impressed. Also I’m now married to a vegetarian, so even if Paul didn’t like vegetarians I care what he thought about it as little as I care what he thought about women speaking in church.