There is a large market for modern English bibles. Some of the modern translations are among the best-selling of all time. They are easier to understand and even LDS general authorities find themselves quoting them from time to time. Once you understand, you have new opportunity to live your life by it. Readers of scripture seem to naturally want this. But big religion has a catch to this.
Hear ye Hear ye, we only approve one bible.
The LDS Church has instructions about which bible is approved for use. Only the King James Bible. And if you don't speak English they exercise the authority who tell you which foreign language version is approved for you to use and which are not. The Church's statements admit that other versions are easier to read, however they don't seem to want you reading those. The accuracy of those is questioned. Which, in their defense is sometimes justified. But as prophets seers and revelators one might think they would solve that problem and simply fix the issues. Because as they stated (see last post), their oversight of translations guards against doctrinal errors. So, the question is left unanswered as to why they don't fix the errors in the modern translations.
I don't know the full answer to why there hasn't been an effort by the LDS church to address this, but as noted last post by Hugh Nibley, when it comes scripture, the Church has contempt for them. It's wealth that is reverenced, not scripture. Speaking of wealth, I want to review the definition of an older word that most of us gloss over. It's this word:
Covetousness. 1 : marked by inordinate desire for wealth or possessions.
Keep that in mind as the word covetousness will get used in just a minute and it'll be helpful to have the definition fresh in mind.
Keep that in mind as the word covetousness will get used in just a minute and it'll be helpful to have the definition fresh in mind.
First here's part of another official First Presidency Message about the bible, part of which also finds itself in the current Handbook of Instructions. This is from August 1992:
While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Before we return to the language, we need to talk about the Joseph Smith Inspired version of the Bible. We should be careful what things are said in Joseph Smith's name. Joseph Smith had a divine mission to correct the King James bible, and to do an inspired translation. Which is a far cry from encouraging the KJV's continued use in the Church as the quote above says. But it gets worse:
This is Joseph Smith in 1831: You can read the original here. Pasted below.
further said that the God had often sealed up the heavens because of covetousness in the Church. Said that the Lord would cut his work short in righteousness and except the church recieve the fulness of the Scriptures that they would yet fall. [p. 13]
There's the word covetousness. This is 1831 and Joseph is warning about covetousness in the Church. Hugh Nibley termed this same idea "reverence for wealth". And the other end of the same stick is what Hugh called "contempt for the scriptures". These two things apparently go together. Joseph's statement about the “fullness of the scriptures” includes the Book of Mormon, the revelations, and the new, inspired Bible revisions. Without those, Joseph said the church would fall.
Ok so where is Joseph's inspired translation of the bible? The Community of Christ publishes one, however the LDS church does not. In 1866 Joseph's wife Emma wouldn't give the original JST documents to the quorum of the 12, so to this day the originals are the property of the Community of Christ. Which is an interesting side topic for another day. The Church could publish their own version of the JST, (BYU scholars have published the manuscripts) but the Church doesn't recognize the JST as official.
Ok so where is Joseph's inspired translation of the bible? The Community of Christ publishes one, however the LDS church does not. In 1866 Joseph's wife Emma wouldn't give the original JST documents to the quorum of the 12, so to this day the originals are the property of the Community of Christ. Which is an interesting side topic for another day. The Church could publish their own version of the JST, (BYU scholars have published the manuscripts) but the Church doesn't recognize the JST as official.
This is from an official editorial of the Church News, dated December 7, 1974:
“The Inspired Version does not supplant the King James Version as the official Church version of the Bible, but the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages. …There you have it. "Does not supplant". It's secondary. The JST excerpts that do get included in the LDS Edition are reduced to "useful commentary". It's enlightening they say, and to quote from the article: "bears a much stronger testimony of the divinity and mission of Jesus Christ than the KJV" (go read all 8 of the bullet points at the bottom of their article) but despite all that, it's apparently still just a useful commentary and, according to them, still comes up lacking in order to supplant the KJV as an official Church version. Why is that?
I don't know about you, but that attitude relegates the JST to a clearly second-class translation of the bible. Reducing it to a commentary, study aids (see the handbook 38.8.5), and footnotes, and not including all of the edits. Even the Joseph Smith papers project isn't going to publish the JST. This is shabby treatment, contempt even, for this inspired translation of the Bible by a Prophet of God.
Joseph's had a mission to do an inspired translation of the bible. Now why would such a thing be needed if the KJV was so great? Well because the KJV was incorrect and corrupt. So, referring to that First Presidency statement above we have to ask how it is that Joseph Smith supported the KJV, encouraging it's continued use in the Church if he himself worked on a different version of the bible? And then went so far as to say that if the Church failed to receive it, they would fall. Doesn't add up.
This is among the most perplexing things we've come upon yet. Could it really have something to do with money? Does reverence for wealth really come into play here? Would a worldwide church lose public credibility and perhaps gain less followers if they were to use an obscure translation of the bible instead of the gold standard King James version? You decide.
To recap: The church does not promote, publish, nor use an actual Joseph Smith Inspired translation of the bible. As we all know, they only authorize only the KJV. And then contradict Joseph by incorrectly asserting that Joseph supported and encouraged the continued use of the KJV for the Church. Which is nonsense. The history and the truth set us free from these errors.
Obscuring Evidence of Ancient Origin
Going back to the Book of Mormon specifically, and the Ensign First Presidency statement from part 1. The risk of obscuring evidence of ancient origin was one of the other things the Ensign article mentioned was a concern with creating a modern English version. My question regarding this concern is this: Why don't you just keep an existing edition that retains that evidence? And then also have additional modern edition available for all the benefits it would offer? There is no contradiction if a version is retained to preserve historicity, and a version also exists in modern language for people to gain better understanding.
The bible too has evidence of ancient origin in it, but yet the world clearly tolerates Modern English editions of the Bible. The evidence of ancient origin in the bible haven't been removed from our consciousness or from libraries simply because a modern edition also exists. Why would the Book of Mormon be any different?
The curious thing with remnants of ancient origins is that without any understanding of them they can just become a vanity-relic. Mere collector's items, or museum pieces that have a form of Godliness but no power. If we fearfully guard what we've been given rather than unfolding them for our understanding and betterment, then how does an evidence of ancient origin help anyone? God's word was said to be something living, not just a relic to be observed preserved and not understood. Would it really cause such enormous heartburn as to collapse Sunday School (held for only 50 minutes every 2 weeks) if someone read from a different edition? I've rarely been in a Sunday School lesson where more than a few brief moments are spent actually reading scripture text anyway.
But that aside, I do have a question when it comes to preserving ancient origin. Which "ancient origin" time period exactly is the one that ought to be preserved? Is it Joseph Smith day, 1800's? What about Nephi's day, around 600 BC? What about the brother of Jared's day? Tower of Babel time period? Or even further back?
When Joseph Smith was alive, the restoration wasn't so much about clinging to relics as it was restoring, expanding, and adding light and knowledge. The restoration in our day has halted among the LDS Church. Nothing is being restored anymore. In fact, numerous things are instead being discarded at an increasing rate (the temple ceremonies are one example). Not only is nothing being restored in our day, but more and more things are not even being preserved anymore.
When Joseph Smith was alive, the restoration wasn't so much about clinging to relics as it was restoring, expanding, and adding light and knowledge. The restoration in our day has halted among the LDS Church. Nothing is being restored anymore. In fact, numerous things are instead being discarded at an increasing rate (the temple ceremonies are one example). Not only is nothing being restored in our day, but more and more things are not even being preserved anymore.
Back to the Ensign article. I want to be fair, so I did a little fairness exercise to ensure a degree of balance in the discussion. Here's a brief list as an attempt to discuss this topic with mutual respect.
Fair:
-Readers should be able to safely assume the speaker means what they say, and they do not mean things which they did not say.
-Speakers can clarify things they said in the event they were not as clear as they intended to be or forgot to say something. Everyone should be able to clarify if they would like to.
-Readers ought to respect intellectual property and trademarks. This is not only fair but required by law.
-Readers should show respect to organizational roles and organizational authority as part of basic human respect shown to each other.
Not Fair:
-Projecting assumptions onto people’s words, putting words into people’s mouths, and inferring they mean to say things which they did not say.
-Insisting someone spoke for God when they never claimed to be doing so. This seems like an especially unfair burden to put on a speaker.
-Not allowing speakers or readers to be human and exercise their freedoms and have their own opinions and views.
-Exercising too much authority over others and or going too far with it.
-Exercising too much authority over others and or going too far with it.
Ok, with that list in mind, it seems reasonable and also respectful to accept the 1993 Ensign statement about the Book of Mormon exactly as it appears. In this case, it was their statement, of their own view, about their trademarked material, stating what they do not authorize to be put forward as representing the specific Church they manage. This seems fair on all accounts.
The article did not say their message came from God or represented God's view. We have only our assumptions to tell us otherwise. And after going through the list above, that wouldn't be fair to project assumptions the speaker didn't communicate. Church leaders, same as anyone else, are entitled to hold their own ideas, create policies, espouse doctrinal views, and have always been free thinking human beings. So, it's our job as listeners to discern inspired moments from all other moments.
It’s also been 28 years since that statement was published. Adequate time to have made an amendment, correction, update, or said something else about the topic if it was unclear. To date, it hasn't been updated or clarified, but has instead been elevated in importance by adding the statement to the Handbook of Instructions. So, I leave it at that. The Church and its leaders said "no", still say no, and "the thinking is done!" Or so says that one eyebrow raising phrase from LDS history: “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. " (Improvement Era June, 1945). That is not unlike things said in centuries past. More on that in a second.
Who owns the book?
If you remember the Ensign article from part 1, there was the part of the statement saying that the First Presidency did not authorize efforts at a modern English effort. This implies that they are the sole authorizers and gatekeepers of what can/cannot be done with this book of scripture. Which being fair, is accurate for their particular published version of the content. The LDS Church has the right to carry a trademark and copyright their own unique publications. And with that comes the right to state what can and cannot be done with Church owned intellectual property. But let's also continue to be fair and not get confused that those rights also encompass outright sole ownership of the underlying scriptural content, and what anyone can do with it.
No single Christian denomination says, "The Bible only belongs to our specific denomination, and not yours!". The same should apply to the Book of Mormon. It was published before the LDS Church as an organization even existed. Its claim is that it contains God's word, not a Church's word. The original material from Joseph Smith is also now in the public domain. It's not the property of the LDS Church. Therefore, it makes no more sense to consider the LDS church as "owning" the underlying substance of The Book of Mormon than to accept that a particular Christian denomination "owns" the Bible.
Rome spoke long ago too....but the thinking wasn't done, nor was it God's plan!
I'm reminded of Martin Luthor. Was Martin Luthor authorized (by the Church of his day) to translate the Bible from Latin (language of scholars and clergy) into the common German language? Nope. His translation was a revolutionary act, in defiance of Rome. It put the book into the hands of the common man (non-clergy) who could now read and understand it rather than being limited to what the clergy told them was the "correct" and "authorized" meaning.
Luther observed and then protested church corruption, such as the sale of indulgences for financial gain, and rejected the pope's role as the infallible interpreter of scriptures. Let that sink in for a minute. He rejected the claims of the highest leaders of the Church to be the only people who could correctly interpret scripture. (And thus, oversee a modern translation, or prohibit one, as the case may be)
Martin Luther sought to put the bible into the hands of ordinary Christians, in the language they could understand.
“One may not ask the Latin language how to speak German as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask mothers in the home, children on the street, the common man at the market, and watch carefully how they speak. After that one may translate. Then those who read will understand you and know that you are speaking German with them” Martin Luther, Ein Sendbrieff. Von Dolmetschen... (Wittenberg, 1530)
One critic argued that Luther’s Bible should be ‘forbidden to the common man’. Such are the fears and attempts at control that historically always seems to surround God's word.
Putting the bible into the common language reduced the Church's power (but no doubt caused great irritation). And we all know how well it goes over when power is removed from those who seek it or hold lots of it. This was a pivotal act in Christian history. Luthor's translation was deemed "heretical" by the religious powers at the time. But time changes things. Luther's "rogue" bible, lacking Church authorization, changed Christianity and the world. In hindsight it's easier to God's hand inspiring Martin Luthor in spite of it being a revolutionary act towards Rome and the Church at the time.
Does the fact that no specific religious denomination can claim to own the Bible diminish or dilute the truth found in the bible? Certainly not. Could the same perhaps apply to the Book of Mormon? The bible is just the bible. Anyone can read it and learn from it. Some translations may be more correct than others, but that's a matter of how well the translation preserved the truth. When scripture is free from religious ownership and control it allows anyone, religious or not, to search, study, investigate and find insights into the word of God for the benefit of all. Clearly that does not hinder, but instead helps the cause of scripture.
I can only speculate on what Luther's attitude might be if he lived in 2021 and saw another situation where a central religious authority calls itself the sole interpreter of and owner scripture. Seems to me if men atop religious empires are to that point, it's likely the scriptures and their meaning are already being corrupted by the same people.
I can only speculate on what Luther's attitude might be if he lived in 2021 and saw another situation where a central religious authority calls itself the sole interpreter of and owner scripture. Seems to me if men atop religious empires are to that point, it's likely the scriptures and their meaning are already being corrupted by the same people.
Food for thought: If you remove the Book of Mormon from the modern LDS Church, the Church loses foundation. But if you remove the Church's association from the Book of Mormon, the book and what it contains stand on its own. And belongs to the people, not a corporation.
What is it with religions and various forces all throughout history trying to suppress, have a monopoly on, or alter scripture?
In our day, similar to the bible, the Book of Mormon is not diminished or downgraded by being free from control and ownership by a specific Church denomination. It might actually be the opposite. That is if we stop neglecting it.
Continued in part 3
No comments:
Post a Comment