📑 Bible¶
Estimated time to read: 21 minutes
Article of Faith¶
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.
What translation issues are there? Do we have any authoritative answer to specific passages that are changed/removed/incorrectly translated? Did JST address all of them, and the LDS Standard Works OT & NT are now "translated correctly"? I should think that with all the materials and study manuals that the church has provided, we'd have ample time to separate what's accurate from those "philosophies of men" that got snuck in. I should also think that the church led by God's chosen prophets wouldn't perpetuate and republish mistranslated directives from God.
Without any clarification, it sounds like this gives the church permission to repudiate specific parts, as if "that’s one of the mistranslated parts" but what supports our existing doctrine is translated fine.
The passage specifying that women aren't allowed to speak in meetings? Nah, that's a mis-translation. To our modern sensibilities, it's both unambiguous and discriminatory. That whole symbolic Stick of Judah thing, though, they nailed that one. Inspired writing, it is! Just the right level of vague.
King James Version¶
Honest question: on what grounds is KJV the “most accurate” translation? Have we (in the LDS faith) examined the other translations? If so, when was that examination? What were the conclusions? How are we quantifying accuracy? KJV is certainly what Joseph Smith grew up with. Is that all the grounds we need?
Today, English-speaking Church members use the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible. Based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than recent versions.
— 400 Years of the King James Bible, Ensign, August 2011
To date, I haven't found record of that. The claim in the above quote doesn't have a citation to back it up.
But what I have found is what the church General Handbook has to say:
The Church identifies editions of the Bible that align well with the Lord’s doctrine in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation (see Articles of Faith 1:8). A preferred edition of the Bible is then chosen for many languages spoken by Church members.
— Editions of the Holy Bible, Section 38.8.40.1, General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Read the rest of that section if you'd like. It sure sounds to me that the church is starting with the Book of Mormon as the baseline, and choosing a Bible edition that matches that. This handbook section isn't explicitly prioritizing the BoM over the Bible in terms of preference; that would be directly counter to what I was told to say while a missionary. Still, this feels gross and weird to read about.
It is not by chance or coincidence that we have the Bible today. Righteous individuals were prompted by the Spirit to record both the sacred things they saw and the inspired words they heard and spoke. Other devoted people were prompted to protect and preserve these records. Men like John Wycliffe, the courageous William Tyndale, and Johannes Gutenberg were prompted against much opposition to translate the Bible into language people could understand and to publish it in books people could read. I believe even the scholars of King James had spiritual promptings in their translation work.
— The Miracle of the Holy Bible, M Russel Ballard, General Conference April 2007
I'm interested to find more about what opposition Tyndale, Wycliffe, and Gutenberg faced. Truth be told, I know very little about those people. I have the idea in my head that the Catholic church had taken advantage of illiterate adherents prior to the invention of the printing press. Keeping scripture in Latin meant that lay folk couldn't corroborate or verify any teachings. That understanding may be an oversimplification of matters. I'll add some notes here once I dig into it. I find it noteworthy simply because an LDS official is making this statement. Persecution complex seems prevalent in Christianity. Some of it is justified, but much of it is not.
The Church uses many translations of the Bible in various languages. In English, the King James Version is used as the official Bible of the Church.
. . .
Latter-day Saints revere the Bible. They study it and believe it to be the word of God. However, they do not believe the Bible, as it is currently available, is without error.
. . .
As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text. The existence of such errors becomes apparent when one considers the numerous and often conflicting translations of the Bible in existence today. Careful students of the Bible are often puzzled by apparent contradictions and omissions.
The King James Version is the world’s most widely known Bible translation, using early seventeenth-century English. Its powerful, majestic style has made it a literary classic, with many of its phrases and expressions embedded in our language. Earlier generations were ‘brought up’ with this translation and learnt many of its verses by heart.
— Bible Versions, Cambridge
Imperfect translation¶
“Though it is the most important book in the religious life and culture of the English-speaking world, the King James Bible or Authorized Version of 1611 has never been perfectly printed,” wrote David Norton, a professor at Victoria University who recently published the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. “What we now read as the King James Bible contains numerous deliberate and some accidental changes to the text, and these can be revised to make it more faithful to the King James translators’ own decisions as to how it should read.”
— Understanding the Process of Publishing the Book of Mormon, Church Newsroom, January 2008
A professor at Victoria University shouldn't be thought of as an LDS church authority, but for the church to publish this quote in a newsroom report sure does lend it credence.
This will become very relevant in the next section.
Could we get a re-translation?¶
No.
The Lord directed His prophets and apostles to preserve the scriptures in safety (see Doctrine and Covenants 42:56). The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles closely supervises the translation of Church scriptures. Using approved processes helps ensure doctrinal accuracy and preserve evidence of the text’s origins.
Area Presidencies submit official requests for new translations of the scriptures to the Church Correlation Department.
...
The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has not authorized efforts to translate or rewrite scripture text into modern or informal language. This counsel does not apply to Church publications for children.
— Scripture Translation, Modern-Language Scriptures, Sections 38.8.40.2 & 38.8.40.3, General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Few scholars have the expertise, let alone the confidence, to embark on a new translation of the New Testament for Latter-day Saints. Fortunately, Thomas Wayment has enough of both. ... His new translation was published by Deseret Book and the BYU Religious Studies Center—just in time for the church’s 2019 focus on the New Testament. This conversation focuses on his new translation and new perspectives he gained during the process, including some surprises.
— Thom Wayment - A New Translation of The New Testament, FaithMatters
This new translation from the best available Greek manuscripts renders the New Testament text into modern English and is sensitive to Latter-day Saint beliefs and practices. This translation is readable and accessible for a wide range of readers.
— Product description as listed on Amazon
Thomas Wayment has a PhD in New Testament studies (see his bio page in BYU's Religious Studies Center), which means he knows a lot more about scripture than I do. Seeing how he was employed by BYU, the LDS church's private university, I assume he has good intentions and good qualifications to try and do this. So why, then, did I find out about this modern translation five years after it was published? Did you know about the BYU professor who published a more modern translation of the New Testament?
I can observe two things: his bio page, linked above, does state he was the publications director of BYU's Religious Studies Center until 2018. His book was published in early 2019. He is now a professor of Classical Studies. At the time of writing, his Humanities bio page verifies that title.
I can only offer conjecture, but I suspect his change from departments had to do with his insubordination to do what a prophet, seer, revelator, and translator does. Terminating employment would be a bad look. Let's send him to another department, even though he demonstrated that New Testament seems to be his wheelhouse (you know, having a PhD and all that.)
The only other name that comes to mind for biblical scholars is one Dan McClellan, who has a really neat podcast on the Bible, and even has a BYU article commenting on Bible translations, including a section on Wayment's publication. At the time of writing this note, I haven't read it yet, but I've got it bookmarked! 🙃
Who can translate?¶
Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters . . . [a]nd whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
Having been visited by the Spirit of God; having conversed with angels, and having been spoken unto by the voice of the Lord; and having the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation . . . the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the gift of translation;
And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—
Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.
I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.
Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ[.]
I think its safe to assume that, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, that he is also a "translator." It'd be a pretty bad look if he were to be shown to mistranslate something, but we'll get to that later. If JS was a prophet, seer, revelator, and translator, and that same priesthood authority got passed down to Young, Taylor, Woodruff, and so on down to Monson & Nelson, I should think that they could also act as a translator. So... If, according to the article of faith, the bible can be used only "as far as it is translated correctly", I am left to wonder if Joseph Smith's own translation of the bible addressed those issues?
If so, why would the modern LDS faith not use the JST exclusively? If not, why do we cite that article of faith? Moreover, could we ask Nelson, or any other modern LDS church leader to clarify or rectify translation issues?
Joseph Smith Translation¶
The audacity?
Following are selected portions of the Joseph Smith Translation of the King James Version of the Bible (JST). The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the King James Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.
Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another.
— Introduction page to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
Oh. It’s not… It’s not even a translation? It’s a revelation accompaniment? Why are we calling it translation? It says right there it isn’t translation.
FAIR has some comments that I don't understand why they'd willingly publish:
The JST is not intended primarily or solely as a restoration of lost Bible text.
As expressed in the Bible Dictionary on churchofjesuschrist.org "The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible."
— What is the nature of the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)?, FAIR
🙄 "To some extent" is the qualifier that lets us pick and choose when this book of scripture is actually scripture. Was Joseph just "acting as a man" while using his theological position of authority to correct existing records of other prophets? If this is no big deal, then it should be handled with equal credence to any other biblical commentary, and not be presented as "our founding prophet added corrections to an ancient document; we trust him to do this because he's super good at translating ancient documents."
Alternatives¶
The LDS church certainly has demonstrated its propensity for the KJV. Are there exceptions to this?
The only exception I've found to date (I imagine I'll find more in the future, but who knows) is from 2016 October General Conference—a fellow named Dieter Uchtdorf, a proper crowd-pleaser, that one is.
Uchtdorf gave a talk called Fourth Floor, Last Door, which I remember listening to as a heartwarming tale about perseverance, and caring for those outside of convenient reach. If you were to open up the "related content" on the page, either on mobile or on a browser, you see the footnotes referenced. This talk has an unusual number of cirations of the New International Version. Check for yourself.
This isn't some groundbreaking discovery hidden from the unwitting masses, of course—I simply find it noteworthy that so much of church leadership demands KJV exclusivity, and this is an exception.
Adam Clarke¶
Joseph Smith plagiarized his translation of the New Testament from Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary, published 1810-1826. FAIR also has some comments about this, that I don't understand why they'd willingly publish:
In March 2017, Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University, published a paper in BYU’s Journal of Undergraduate Research titled "A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation". In a summary of their research, Wayment and his research assistant wrote:
*Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.
— Did Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary significantly influence the JST?; see also a short summary at BYU, A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation
FAIR then quotes the following from a faith-positive podcast called LDS Perspectives, where Thomas Wayment is interviewed on this topic. A full transcript is available in their linked resources.
What we found, a student assistant (Hailey Wilson Lamone) and I, we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night. We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, "I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary." Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible. It was a big moment. That article comes out in the next year. We provide appendi [sic] and documentation for some of the major changes, and we try to grapple with what this might mean.
— Episode 55: Joseph Smith’s Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations – Thomas A. Wayment Latter-day Saint Perspectives
I'll point out that this certainly appears to be the same Thomas Wayment who published a more modern translation of the New Testament. I'll again iterate that his education and credentials qualify him to be a reliable source, at least by my standards.
Why not publish JST more clearly?¶
There exists an Ensign article about this exact matter: Why does the LDS edition of the Bible not contain all of the corrections and additions made by Joseph Smith?
I had always assumed that it's because Mormons didn't want to "weird out" the rest of Christianity by sharing the same traditional printed copy, thereby avoiding the awkward encounter of a practicing LDS member "misunderstanding" a verse the way mainstream Christians do. I don't know that this was ever explicitly told to me.
I've run this Ensign article through a word counter tool, and deemed that it uses 636 words in 12 paragraphs to tell you amid many non-sequiturs that all of Adam Clarke Joseph Smith's corrections would just take up too much space to print.
"You have to read the 'mistranslated' document first and then go search for the corrections. We've just got so much truth and revelation that we can't possibly share all of it with you even if we wanted to!"
Why does this matter?¶
Much like the Book of Abraham, if what Joseph Smith calls a revelation can be demonstrated otherwise, that harms his credibility as a prophet called of God to receive revelation. If subsequent church leaders trace their authoritative lineage back to Smith, it calls their position into question as well.
I imagine I could list other examples, but one that I've stumbled upon demonstrates how treating the JST as canon scripture can drastically change our understanding:
Why These Things Are Not in the Bible
Moses 1:23 explains why the account of Moses overcoming Satan is not in our current Bible. It is interesting to note that the words Satan and devil do not appear in Genesis 1–6 in the Bible. Satan and devil appear over twenty times in the Joseph Smith Translation of these same chapters (Moses 1–8). One of the ways Satan tries to deceive people is to get them to believe he does not exist (see 2 Nephi 28:22).
— Understanding the Scriptures, Moses 1: “This Is My Work and My Glory”, Old Testament Seminary Student Study Guide
I may add others as I encounter them, but I'd argue that this excerpt does indicate that trying to downplay the JST's role is dishonest.
Plain and Precious things¶
And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.
This BoM passage is cited as evidence that the Bible is incomplete, and BoM fills in the gaps.
Legitimate question: what gaps? The Book of Mormon doesn't have hardly any Mormon doctrines or practices in it. If the intent of the BoM is to prove Smith's legitimacy, and his legitimacy proves modern church leadership, then no, the BoM is not filling in gaps— modern prophets are.
What specific things are missing from the Bible that are found in the Book of Mormon? We've had nearly 200 years of people reading these scriptures daily, surely we can find an exhaustive enumeration somewhere? Maybe a prophet of God could tell us?
“Surely the most plain and precious of all truths lost from the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, are the clear and unequivocal declarations of the mission of Jesus Christ, his foreordained role as Messiah and Savior of the world, and the covenantal elements of his gospel, which have been taught from Adam down through each succeeding dispensation. Thus the Book of Mormon’s highest purpose is to restore to the universal family of God that crucial knowledge of Christ’s role in the salvation of every man, woman, and child who now lives, has ever lived, or will yet live upon the earth.”
— Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon, Jeffrey R Holland, Ensign 1997, 6–7.
Find me a practicing Christian who didn’t already know that from reading the Bible alone.