Do mormons (LDS) use the King James version of the Bible?
I have the PDF downloaded from the lds.org website.
Why do they use that version and not another version? Is it tradition from the days of Joseph Smith?
Did Joseph Smith make a custom version for his church?

~~~~iceman9090

My understanding is because The First Book of Napoleon The Late War between the United States and Great Britain, required reading for New York students at JS time, which was written in the same wording of the King James Bible, it was adopted.

As the Bible was plagiarized so was this book. The beginning of the book is the same as the bom.

There was a great talk on exmormon during the October conferences in either 1999 or something close to that. It was like a PowerPoint presentation comparing paragraphs and places that the bom was plagiarized.

This presentation was a major factor in my exit from tscc, do not know if it is still around.

"The First Book of Napoleon The Late War between the United States and Great Britain, required reading for New York students at JS time"

Required reading in NY schools? Really? Did you just make that up? I'd like to see a reference on that.

Do an internet search of the title. You will find the documentation you question. Also many references and comparisons of the book written and copywriter in 1809.

IOW you don't have a reference that it was required reading (your words) in NY schools in the early 1800s.

Wordtree dot org/thelatewar

Thread on Google search. Shows how the book was marked as book for school use in New York and other states.

I remembered this from the talk 10 years ago and did not reinvestigate before posting. I saw the reference on a reddit post also.

It was written in early 1800s but used as school book later .

There are examples on some of the google links of the plagiarism giving verses of bom and the book.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2020 08:27PM by wondering.

That's not really proof that it was used by the relevant schools. All it shows is that the book was marketed that way. I seriously doubt that there were uniform rules in NY or any other state at that point in history.

Your broader point, though, is valid. The Late War, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, and the Spaulding stories were all "in the air" as it were, when JS was a kid and his borrowings are evident.

I think it is because Smith used a KJ Bible to create his interpretations of scriptural passages specific to Mormonism. Any other version might have words or nuances that do not fit his interpretation.

Over the generations, more CS'ists use or consult, other translations.

I always encourage people coming out of the traditional cults (LDS, CS, Jw*) to get a good study Bible in modern English, and start reading a few chapters and books straight through. That way the old cultic interpretations and nuances aren't triggered, and they can gain their own understanding of it, as opposed to what was spoon-fed them by their former cultic superiors.

*I realize the JW's use their "New World Translation" but it's style and cadence is still KJV-like. Best to dispense with the "thee's," "thou's," and "Lo and behold..."

What could be wrong with a Bible written at a time when burning witches alive was considered an evening’s entertainment?

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What could be wrong with a Bible written at a time
> when burning witches alive was considered an
> evening’s entertainment?

Blood spilled onto the ground is stll your basic entry for Mormons to help escort anyone of their choosing. Just ask Susan Powell, her husband hatchet'ed both of their kids to death just so they could be in heaven, for sure! Just before killing himself and trying to douse everything in flames as an attemted cover-up.

Rocks or weights and drowning women thought to be possessed with LDS (LSD) ergot molds from a bad batch of otherwise ordinary rye grain is just so old world and untimely.

https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1037.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2020 05:13PM by josephssmmyth.

I know it's been asked more than once, but has the SCCOJCOLDS ever seriously tried to create their "correctly" translated version of the Bible?

With all the religious profs at the various BYU colleges, the entire church leadership and having direct access to JC, they could whip out the most correct copy in a matter of a few months.

Didn't Smith already do that?

I'll add some fluff here. IMO the church sticks to the KJV mainly to bolster the claims to authenticity of the BoM. The BoM hs all those quotes from the KJV bible, so the KJV must be the best of all.

Also because Boyd K. Packer liked it.

Why should I care what the buy bull says ?

The church has addressed this.

First non english speakers have a multitude of bibles they use.

Second the church went through the king james version and made e tensive foot notes and references to Joseph's "inspired" translation. So the info is there. Has been for decades.

Third. Emma held on to Joseph's bible translation and the Reorganized LDS folks did publish it. They have the copyright.

The real reason is this: The KJV has a MAJOR translation error that none of the other translations have.

Joseph didn't know the difference and made some amazing errors in the D&C because of his ignorance.

To whit: In the N.T. the KJV translates every mention of the O.T prophet Elijah as Elias (which is the Greek version of Elijah)

In the KJV there is NO O.T. prophet named Elias and that name appears NOWHERE in the KJV O.T.

Even though the N.T. text obviously refers to the O.T. person Elijah Joseph miss-interpreted the name as a different prophet and in D&C 110 has back to back visions and even says that the vision of Elias had no sooner faded than the great and notable prophet Elijah appeared upon the scene.

How could anyone see the same guy back-to-back and not realize it was the same guy? (unless he was making it up, of course)

People who read other versions of the Bible will soon discover this little detail and start to wonder.....don'tcha think?

iceman9090 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do they use that version and not another version?

Various Christian denominations on the fundamentalist end of the scale also use only the KJV.

Maybe because they think early 17th-century English makes them sound/feel highfalutin.

I barely remember cracking open that king James Bible even once in that 'religion'. They ignored the Bible almost entirely on purpose in my opinion. Jesus clearly spoke against secret combinations and that God does not make oaths with men in the new testament.


They talked about everything under the sun a million times but completely ignored the Bible and Jesus. The Bible and Jesus may be fictional but still it makes me mad that they ignored him compared to lustful men 'prophets'. They praised narcissist and lustful men over Jesus. It pissed me off.