Half of all energies of my scripture study was lost to understanding the english, rather than taking in the word.

IMO… KJV is a waste of time, it had it’s place in the 19th century and earlier… that english is dead now.

Or course the church is as varied as the people who run it. I am sure there are some wards where other translations fly, but I have heard of other wards where people were strictly forbidden from teaching with a different version. I don’t know if there is an official pronouncement on it or not.

S. Faux,

I think, though, one should be literate in the KJV before one floats off to other versions.

Why? This seems like it puts a big unnecessary hurdle in front of people. I’m thinking especially of a new convert who wasn’t raised hearing KJV english. I’d rather they start getting more out of their Bible study today than saying they have to learn KJV english first.

Eric,

Good tip on the New Jerusalem Bible.

Suzannpappan,

One sister I met actually thought she had to repent because she read out of a Gideons Bible once in a motel and she had forgotton her (JST)scriptures.

Ouch.

You raise an interesting point about what purpose we have in reading the Bible. Do we read it like we read Shakespeare? For me, I am usually reading for very different reasons than I would read Shakespeare. As literature, some of the plain english translations are fairly lacking.

There is also a more practical reason the church endorses the KJV – all the footnotes, cross references, and other helps. It would be a waste of resources to try and replicate these with other versions.

I’m not so sure it would be the waste of time you say it would be. If everyone in the church got more out of their scripture study that would be a pretty good reason to put the effort in. We put in FAR more effort to lots of books very few people ever read.

I see the same with the KJV. OF course we should use other translations and helps to understand the language of the Bible. Victor Ludlow encourages that in his book on Isaiah and quotes extensively from the NIV. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, not just the KJV, as long as it is translated correctly.

There is also a more practical reason the church endorses the KJV – all the footnotes, cross references, and other helps. It would be a waste of resources to try and replicate these with other versions.

I grew up non-LDS, so I don’t have the emotional ties to that translation that many members of the church do. I don’t associate it with the divine; I associate with Shakespeare. Even after being an active member of the Church for a decade, I still struggle when I read it.

When I read a good modern translation, I feel that God is speaking to me. When I read the KJV, I feel like I’m reading a textbook. So, except for liturgical use, I’ll stick to the former.

I do regularly read from non-KJV Bibles, and I benefit. Most translations are done very responsibly. I think, though, one should be literate in the KJV before one floats off to other versions.

Why do we still stick to the KJV tenaciously after all these years, even to the point of disallowing other translations from use as the basis for Gospel Doctrine classes etc.?

Since when? I used other translations in teach both Old Testament and New Testament in Gospel Doctrine during the past two years. Most of the members, of course, had KJV, but I freely suggested that they look at other translations if they were struggling with Isaiah or Paul. ..bruce..