Why the King James Version?

To some extent, Latter-day Saints participated in this trend. Alienated from the culturally dominant Protestants in so many ways, the Saints plausibly might have identified with the embattled Catholics by defending alternative translations. But most LDS converts had come from Protestant ranks that assumed the KJV. Moreover, the Saints themselves had inherited a significant strain of anti-Catholicism, and during the course of Mormon history some would identify the pope as the head of "the great and abominable church" mentioned in the Book of Mormon. An occasional Mormon leader even made these drifts explicit, remarking on the worth of the Authorized Version against Roman Catholics who objected to it.

After the turn of the century, a more pressing influence -- the newly perceived threat of modern biblical studies -- helped entrench the Authorized Version. Although the responses of Church leaders to higher criticism were actually quite diverse, many leaders were decidedly hostile, seeing the new approach to scripture as a menace to Christian faith. Some became defensive, viewing any attempt to progress beyond the trusted King James Bible through scholarship as a related challenge to faith. Joseph Fielding Smith, for instance, was so bitter at the inroads made by higher criticism that he viewed textual criticism equally dimly.

In addition to such causes, we must also acknowledge that Mormon loyalty to the KJV was simply the fruit of a diffuse conservatism, a natural attachment to the vehicle through which a people feel they have encountered the sacred. This love of the Bible "of one's youth" is easily traced in the resistance with which every major new translation, including the King James Version, has been greeted. This preservationist impulse will be explored more fully as we look at the later 20th century, but it doubtless was a factor in earlier decades as well.

I must reiterate that this new emphasis on the Authorized Version in the late 19th and early 20th centuries represented a real shift from Joseph Smith's era. But it is similarly important not to overstate the change. As many Saints had done since 1830, some continued simply to equate the Bible itself with its 1611 English translation; they had never known another. Indeed, although the KJV was spoken of with increasing self-consciousness as the Mormon Bible, considerable diversity continued to exist. B. H. Roberts and others were relatively open to ongoing studies that improved the Greek text from which better translations could be made. A new generation of Latter-day Saint leaders continued to instruct that the KJV was not translated by inspiration and noted here and there other versions without asserting KJV superiority.

Even when Church leaders did articulate reasons for recommending the King James over other translations, they rarely claimed that it was more accurate. They supported it primarily because they suspected the RLDS production of Joseph Smith's revision or because they believed the elegant familiar version had "taken too firm a hold of the popular heart" to forsake it. Sometimes, in fact, they highly praised modern translations, offering only an appended tolerance for those who would continue to prefer the familiar version "because they have grown accustomed to its lofty phrases."

Occasionally, a leader even argued extensively for the superiority of the major revisions of 1881 and 1901 (the [British] Revised Version and the American Standard Version). One writer noted that the KJV scholars did not have access to older manuscripts subsequently available and that even the Catholic version was more accurate in many instances than the KJV. He went on to ridicule the common "beautiful literature" argument -- as though scholars should take it upon themselves to add "grace and dignity" to the original language of the uneducated fishermen of Galilee. Although loyalty to the Bible of one's ancestors was commendable, "those who accept the eighth article of the Church will seek for the best translation."

Despite this wide spectrum of attitudes, ordinary Church members during the first half of the century were not so much hostile as they were indifferent to the new translations that were beginning to multiply. Leaders increasingly noted that the KJV was the "best" version but often gave no rationale for the assertion. The Church produced various editions for its missionaries, children's organization, and education system -- all using the KJV.

In the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, then, Church leaders had largely taken the KJV for granted. But they had also insisted on its limitations and had encouraged the exploration, through both scholarly and prophetic means, of new and better expressions of God's word. By contrast, leaders in the early 20th century also took the KJV for granted but tended to resist scholarly improvements. They seemed passively to assume that if a new translation of the scriptures were needed, God would take the initiative and let his prophet know. Nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints shared much with their contemporaries but reacted creatively against a confining orthodoxy; early 20th-century Saints shared much with their non-Mormon peers but reacted conservatively against a changing, secular world. Of course, Church members continued to feel free -- sometimes they were even encouraged -- to compare various translations. But we must wonder how many actually bothered.