The Bible

C. S. Lewis, in a letter to T. S. Eliot, made this observation:

“Odd, the way the less the Bible is read the more it is translated! (The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis 3:1346)

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Mormon Church) cherish the Bible. They hold it sacred and revere its words. In fact, it was a Bible passage that started the Church.

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church, said his spiritual odyssey began this way:

“I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”

“Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again.” (JS-History 1:11-12)

The Bible overpowered his mind. It was these words that drove him into a grove of trees and to pray to God. Such is the power of the Bible.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ use the King James Version (KJV). This is the version I grew up using. The cadence of the language is sublime, capturing the essence of Shakespeare and the Renaissance. That era was one of the most crucial for civilization and humanity. Our world, it seems, is as prosperous as it is because of the Renaissance. The energy and zest of that age are crystallized in the words of the Bible.

However, some people are critical of the KJV. I heard a radio pastor once refer to the KJV as “an antique.” This was more of a tongue-in-cheek sarcasm than anything else. But his point is taken: the KJV is archaic, and to the untrained ear, it sounds like high-faluting pidgin.

C. S. Lewis loved the KJV, but he also saw the necessity for new translations. He asserted that we outgrow translations as we outgrow clothing (See The Quotable Lewis, 73-73). But the problem is not so much one of outgrowing translations as it is outgrowing doctrines.

Speaking in 1970, Howard W. Hunter, an apostle and later president of the Church, made this statement:

“What of spiritual values and the religious ideals of past generations, which have been the great stabilizing influence on society? Modern thinkers claim these have been the great deterrents to man in the freedoms he now seeks.”

“There is a great effort on the part of so-called modernists to change religious beliefs and teachings of the past to conform to modern thought and critical research. They deemphasize the teachings of the Bible by modern critical methods and deny that scripture is inspired.”

“The modernist teaches that Christ is not the Son of God. He denies the doctrine of the atoning sacrifice by which all men may be saved. He denies the fact of the resurrection of the Savior of the world and relegates him to the status of a teacher of ethics. Where, then, is hope? What has become of faith?”

“There are those who declare it is old-fashioned to believe in the Bible. Is it old-fashioned to believe in God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God? Is it old-fashioned to believe in his atoning sacrifice and the resurrection?”

“If it is, I declare myself to be old-fashioned and the Church is old-fashioned. In great simplicity the Master taught the principles of life eternal and lessons that bring happiness to those with the faith to believe. It doesn't seem reasonable to assume the necessity of modernizing these teachings of the Master. His message concerned principles that are eternal. Following these principles, millions of persons have found rich religious experiences in their lives.” ("Where, Then, Is Hope?" Improvement Era, December 1970, 115-116)

As we learned in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, behind each translation there is a specific philosophy. The philosophy of Newspeak was anti-God. That is why Ampleforth, the poet-translator, got into so much trouble: in translating Kipling’s poem into Newspeak, he left the word “God” intact. An affront to Big Brother.

Not that I am accusing the Biblical translators of setting up a “Room 101” or a police state, but what will happen to the faith of Christians if we dilute, denature, or delete the doctrine of the Christ's divinity? As President Hunter pointed out, Modernist Philosophy, and now Post-Modernist Philosophy, is in vogue. Any translator who subscribes to these atheistic and anti-theistic philosophies will reflect that secular bias in their word selection.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, had his own version of the New Testament. It is called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Essentially it is a cut-and-paste—with emphasis on cut—of the New Testament. But what he cut from the New Testament was all the references to Jesus’ divinity and miracles.

As Jefferson explained in a letter:

“I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of [the ancient Jew’s] ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration.”

“To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes.”

“Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers. His character & doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man. (Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestley, Washington, 9 April 1803.)

As he explains in the letter, he began with the assumption that Jesus was not divine, but just a Palestinian Plato. Christ’s message, therefore, was merely one of ethics and Deism, which, coincidentally, was what Jefferson himself happened to believe.

Jefferson’s circular reasoning is apparent: Deism first, the facts second. We are more than grateful for the Declaration of Independence, but in this matter, Thomas Jefferson was clearly off-base.

Joseph Smith taught:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." (“Chapter 3: Jesus Christ, the Divine Redeemer of the World,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, [2007], 45–56.)

The Atonement, which is the Miracle of Miracles, is the linchpin of Christianity. If this doctrine is deleted, or obscured by a soft-ball translation of the Bible, what happens? If Christ’s divinity is not obvious—painfully obvious—in the Bible, then what good is the Bible? And what become of our souls and salvation?

The King James Version keeps these core doctrines intact. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains:

“Twentieth-century Church leaders have given a variety of reasons for the continued use of the KJV: it was the common translation in use in the English-speaking world at the time of the Restoration; its language prevails in all the standard works; a large number of passages in the Book of Mormon, which parallel the Bible, were translated into the English style of the KJV; the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST) was based on the KJV, with 90 percent of the verses unchanged. All latter-day prophets have used the KJV, and using the KJV in all Church publications has made it possible to standardize annotations and indices.”

“The KJV is viewed by many as a masterpiece of English literature. It has been called "the noblest monument of English prose," and it is certainly the most influential; its translators "showed great sensitivity," and the result was "destined for extraordinary influence and acclaim" (Speiser, pp. lxxiii-iv). H. L. Mencken praised it as "probably the most beautiful piece of writing in all the literature of the world" (Paine, p. viii). … ”

“After studying many modern English translations … President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., a counselor in the First Presidency, said in 1956 [in his book Why The King James Version?] that the KJV was "the best version of any yet produced". For example, he felt that the KJV translators clearly portrayed Jesus as the promised Messiah and as the Son of God, and accepted the gift of prophecy, the reality of miracles, and the uniqueness of the love of Christ; whereas modern translations have tended to promote naturalistic explanations for divine action, preferred the word "sign" instead of "miracle," and used "love" in place of "charity," and "appoint" instead of "ordain." His views have been influential among most Latter-day Saints. Not all alternative translations, of course, suffer from the problems identified by President Clark.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:109-110)

Admittedly, this is a bit of a technical matter. I read President J. Reuben Clark’s April 1954 General Conference talk about the King James Version. There is a lot of intricate evidence which does not lend itself for use in an introductory blog such as this. But President Clark’s objections were about doctrinal matters. The new-fangled translations dropped doctrinal matters. The crucial doctrines of the miracles, divine Sonship, atonement, resurrection, etc., were diluted.

Latter-day Saints are Christians through and through. We believe that Christ rose form the dead, and atoned for our sins. That is why Latter-day Saints have a certain zeal about having a having a Bible that reflects these truths. We must always keep in the forefront our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Thomas S. Monson, the sixteenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often referred to as the Mormon Church, counseled members to read good books.

He said:

May our homes be a library of learning.

An essential part of our learning library will be good books. Reading is one of the true pleasures of life. In our age of mass culture, when so much that we encounter is abridged, adapted, adulterated, shredded, and boiled down, it is mind-easing and mind-inspiring to sit down privately with a congenial book.

James A. Michener, prominent author, suggests: “A nation becomes what its young people read in their youth. Its ideals are fashioned then, its goals strongly determined.”

The Lord counseled, “Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118).

Of course, the standard works offer the ultimate library of learning of which I speak. Let us read from them often, both privately and with our families, that we may be enlightened and edified and draw closer to the Lord. (President Thomas S. Monson, "A Sanctuary from the World." Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting: "Building Up a Righteous Posterity" February 9, 2008.)

I appreciate President Monson’s call to return to the scriptures. Go into any bookstore. Inside are thousands of books. Each book is a promise of an exciting adventure, a study of a great life, or a source of new information. I sometimes weep because I do not have time to read all of what I wish.

But that is the real question: What do we do with our reading time? Which books should we be reading? President Monson suggests going back to the scriptures.

J. Golden Kimball, a leader in the church, made this observation:

“I am familiar with the Bible, a little, and the Book of Mormon, the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price [all books of scripture]. I have wished, sometimes, that there would be a big fire and burn all the rest of the books so that we would read these books more. Sometimes I feel that a man ought to be imprisoned for writing any more books; because I got my experience mostly by reading the books which contain the revelations of the Lord. … ”

“I want to say to the Latter-day Saints that according to my judgment and experience—I am old enough to know a few things, and I am old enough to remember some things—some of the greatest inspired men we have ever had in the history of this Church have been men who have read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price.”

“Now, brethren, I do not want to say anything to hurt anyone's feelings about books that are written. I read the Bible through once, and when I got through I said: ‘I will never tackle it again in the flesh;’ but I have read in it, and I am acquainted with it, and I have marked it. I would not give my Bible for all the Bibles in the world, because it is the only Bible I can find anything in.” (J. Golden Kimball, Conference Report, October 1921, p.84.)

Of course his comments are clearly tongue-in-cheek. But his wit underscores his wisdom. We find Bible study hard, and a daunting task. But still, we should do it. As Elder Kimball suggested, we should read in it, become acquainted with it, and mark it.

The Bible has so much to offer us. We have the law, or the commandments form God. These are guides for belief and rules of behavior. We also have the prophets, or the teachings of people whom God called to lead. We also have the historical sections of the Bible. We learn of David, Elijah, Elisha (I would love to meet him), and the kings of Israel and Judah. Each one of these people provides a pattern for us. We have both good and bad examples, and we can learn how to live now by seeing how they lived then.

President Monson once spoke about personal halls of fame.

In the interior of our consciousness, each of us has a private Hall of Fame reserved exclusively for the real leaders who have influenced the direction of our lives. Relatively few of the many men who exercise authority over us from childhood through adult life meet our test for entry to this roll of honor. That test has very little to do with the outward trappings of power or an abundance of this world’s goods.

The leaders whom we admit into this private sanctuary of our reflective meditation are usually those who set our hearts afire with devotion to the truth, who make obedience to duty seem the essence of manhood, who transform some ordinary routine occurrence so that it becomes a vista whence we see the person we aspire to be.

He suggested several people from the Bible as candidates:

For a moment, perhaps each of us could be the qualifying judge through whom each Hall of Fame entry must pass. Whom would you nominate for prominent positions? Whom would I? Candidates are many—competition severe.

I nominate to the Hall of Fame the name of Adam, the first man to live upon the earth. His citation is from Moses: “And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.” (Moses 5:5.) Adam qualifies.

For patient endurance there must be nominated a perfect and upright man whose name was Job. Though afflicted as no other, he declared: “My witness is in heaven, and my record is on high. My friends scorn me: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God.” (Job 16:19–20.) “I know that my redeemer liveth.” (Job 19:25.) Job qualifies.

Every Christian would nominate the man Saul, better known as Paul the Apostle. His sermons are like manna to the spirit, his life of service an example to all. This fearless missionary declared to the world: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation.” (Rom. 1:16.) Paul qualifies.

Then there is the man called Simon Peter. His testimony of the Christ stirs the heart. “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” (Matt. 16:13–16.) Peter qualifies. ...

President Monson also included women from the Bible in his hall of fame:

In our selection of heroes, let us nominate also heroines. First, that noble example of fidelity—even Ruth. Sensing the grief-stricken heart of her mother-in-law, who suffered the loss of each of her two fine sons, feeling perhaps the pangs of despair and loneliness that plagued the very soul of Naomi, Ruth uttered what has become that classic statement of loyalty: “Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” (Ruth 1:16.) Ruth’s actions demonstrated the sincerity of her words. There is place for her name in the Hall of Fame.

Shall we not name yet another, a descendant of honored Ruth? I speak of Mary of Nazareth, espoused to Joseph, destined to become the mother of the only truly perfect man to walk the earth. Her acceptance of this sacred and historic role is a hallmark of humility. “And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” (Luke 1:38.) Surely Mary qualifies.

These are the people from the Bible that he would include. But what is the standard by which we select them? What is it that makes a great person great? President Monson explains:

Could we ask, What makes of these men heroes and these women heroines? I answer: Unwavering trust in an all-wise Heavenly Father and an abiding testimony concerning the mission of a divine Savior. This knowledge is like a golden thread woven through the tapestry of their lives.

Who is that King of Glory, even the Redeemer, for whom such heroes and heroines faithfully served and valiantly died? He is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even our Savior.

His birth was foretold by prophets; angels heralded the announcement of His earthly ministry. To shepherds abiding in their fields came the glorious proclamation: “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:10–11.)

This same Jesus “grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.” (Luke 2:40.) Baptized of John in the river known as Jordan, He commenced His official ministry to men. To the sophistry of Satan, Jesus turned his back. To the duty designated by His Father, He turned His face, pledged His heart, and gave His life. And what a sinless, selfless, noble, and divine life it was! Jesus labored. Jesus loved. Jesus served. Jesus wept. Jesus healed. Jesus taught. Jesus testified. On a cruel cross, Jesus died. From a borrowed sepulchre, to eternal life Jesus came forth.

The name of Jesus of Nazareth, the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, has singular place and honored distinction in our Hall of Fame. ... (Thomas S. Monson, “My Personal Hall of Fame,” Ensign, July 1991, 2.)

We have all of these Biblical notables. But Christ is the center of the Bible. He is the sum and substance of the events. He is the “why?” of the Bible, which is why we emphasize the Bible. It is a testament of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the World. He has changed my life for the better, and I know He will do that for everyone.