Comments on: An Americanized Gospel

By: Fellowbird

Fellowbird — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:39:57 +0000

Hedgehog: Sorry the missing one came from someone called Kaimi. I think the most popular bible in the UK, certainly among Anglicans, is now the New Oxford Annotated Bible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Annotated_Bible) which was published in 1962, with the Apochrypha, added in 1965. Apart from the 1611 version, that is the only edition I have on my bookshelf, though of course one can access any number of versions online. Perhaps it is my Church of England origins which predispose me to the 1611, especially as regards all the familiar stuff – Christmas, Easter, Paul’s epistles, and naturally the Psalms. Of course the other great monument to English literature is the Book of Common prayer – where again I prefer the 1662 version, which I believe is nowadays seldom used: The words of the marriage ceremony seem irreplaceable. All of Jane Austen’s heroines would have been married to them

“DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.”

By: Hedgehog

Hedgehog — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:17:51 +0000

Fellowbird… not sure what post you are referring to since my last was #38, and is visible to me at least. I wouldn’t disagree with you, and I do find the church view to be inconsistent in some respects.
But the other thing I would add is that the KJV is not the original, unlike Shakespeare (though for all I know that could well be edited by others, literature is not my field). There are better translations available.

By: Fellowbird

Fellowbird — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:43:11 +0000

Hedgehog. Not sure what’s happened here, but your most recent post which I have received by email has not appeared here. But what you need to consider is that Mormonism was a frontier religion, most of whose adherents would have owned no more than four – possibly – five books. i.e. the Standard Works. If they were lucky they may also have a copy of Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress”. They would have had nothing of the wealth of scholarship, libraries and the internet, that we have today. They would also have had far less by way of news media etc. In those circumstances the bible (to which was added the B of M etc) was their “instruction manual” and was accepted with a literalness. One person mentioned schizophrenia. What appears deeply schizophrenic to me is the sight of highly educated people from BYU and elsewhere trying to employ the bible in the way they do.

By: Fellowbird

Fellowbird — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:40:17 +0000

Hedgehog: A wise old parson said to me in my youth to think not of the bible as a book, but as a library. As such it contains, fiction and non-fiction, history and liturgy, instruction and poetry. Trying to wrap it all into a conveniently sized thing that fits in your pocket and is the same for everyone, unchallenged, unchallengeable, and “accurate” and “correct” is a total nonsense. That completely neglects its history and its origins. Mormon missionaries use it like a service technician’s instruction manual. One not only needs to read the bible, but to read about it, if one wants an understanding.

By: Hedgehog

Hedgehog — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:24:42 +0000

Well, Fellowbird, given the church tends to fall on the side of presenting scripture as the instruction manual for our lives, then we ought to be aiming for clarity. If, on the other hand we want to keep the poetry, perhaps we’d be better served by being more accepting of nuance, poetry and story in scripture, and rather less literal leaning.

By: Fellowbird

Fellowbird — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:48:08 +0000

Hedgehog. That was an interesting programme. I believe I heard a little of it at the time it went out, as Radio 4 is frequently on in the background in our house. But as regards *understanding* and *poetry* – what do you want, scripture or an instruction manual?

By: Hedgehog

Hedgehog — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:44:06 +0000

Fellowbird, I don’t know if this is something you listen to, but poetic as Shakespeare’s language is, we are missing a whole lot of nuance that those watching at the time would have recognised: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06ycr4v
For scripture I think understanding has to take precedence over poetry.

By: Fellowbird.

Fellowbird. — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:16:03 +0000

John Lundwall. I certainly agree with the schizophrenia point. There is clear evidence of that in all sorts of places. But the word “archaic” has a horrible grating sound, as if it is something horrid – like a cup of tea which has gone cold, and needs to be poured in the kitchen sink and got rid of asap; because it has no further use. The OED defines it more gently as “Belonging to an earlier period, no longer in common use, though still retained either by individuals, or generally, for special purposes, poetical, liturgical, etc.”. I far prefer the term “old fashioned”, and as one gets older the more “old fashioned” one finds one gets. A Church of England vicar once told me, when I was a child, that I would enjoy singing psalms more as I got older. But today, apart from the 23rd – at weddings – psalms are rarely sung. As you grow old you will find that “old fashioned” is warm and cuddly, secure, and a place of peace. So don’t, for goodness sake, call it “archaic” and throw it down the kitchen sink. Old ways you will one day find out, are often better.

By: John Lundwall

John Lundwall — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:55:56 +0000

As an English Lit undergrad I am all for preserving the language of Shakespeare. Alas, there are few who understand it or want to. We now live in a post-literate age where the majority of people do not even read colloquial verbiage, let alone archaic poetry. Also, I find Shakespeare far more enjoyable then the formalisms of King James English. An updated reading will declutter and demystify the text, which is necessary for the rising generation I think.

I wish people loved Shakespeare. But they watch Transformers. In LDS culture the literacy of the archaic text is already dilluted by the sopoforic somnambulism of its own print industry. We hold the King James English as the hallowed word, but write commentaries with crayons and produce Michael Bay versions of soap opera cinema. There is a sort of schizophrenia to our approach.

By: Fellowbird.

Fellowbird. — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 22:26:18 +0000

Clark Goble. I’m no longer involved in the LDS church, but in the years that I was, I could never understand why an appropriate Children’s Bible was not used for kids of Primary age. We used to read bible stories to our children, that were written for under 11s. Once they started secondary school at age 11, a child of normal intelligence ought to be able to cope with the important parts of the bible e.g the New Testament gospels in the 1611 version. When I was at school 60 years ago, we studied the gospels in that way. I also grew to adore the language e.g. “And there were in that same country, shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people”. What poetry! What beauty of expression! And what couldn’t a twelve-year-old native-English speaker not understand. Do you really want to abandon that?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:30:58 +0000

Fellowbird, is it an either/or situation? Can't we make it readable for those who struggle with it while preserving the harder (yet beautiful) language as well? John, the NKJV could easily be licensed by the Church. It's a nice middle ground of updating the language, being truer to the extant sources, yet offering some degree of fidelity to the KJV. Updating our other scriptures using the style of the NKJV but maintaining the older language in revised footnotes could then be done. (And as bad as the text is, the footnotes in our current version of the scriptures are in need of even more loving care)

By: Fellowbird

Fellowbird — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:47:56 +0000

To John Lundwall. Are they equally incapable of understanding Shakespeare, who wrote in an English of an identical period to the 1611 translation? Or should we abolish Shakespeare too? This extract gives you Hamlet’s speech in modern English. http://nfs.sparknotes.com/hamlet/page_138.html. My own view is that the Authorised Version (what Americans call the King James Version) supplies a majesty, and a poetry which is sadly lacking in today’s English. I would love to be able to speak in the language of Shakespeare and the Authorised Version. Should we resign ourselves to defeat, and abandon trying to teach young people to speak good English at all?

By: John Lundwall

John Lundwall — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:01:21 +0000

Clark, you are so right about the need of an updated version of the Bible being necessary, and our conservative tradition is preventing true progress in this regard. The KJV is not only outdated, but is too archaic a language for most of the youth in the Church to truly appreciate, and many do not read the scriptures as a result.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:22:08 +0000

In your personal prayers use whatever feels right. Don’t worry what others think. For public prayers then it’s more appropriate to follow others patterns.

By: Hedgehog

Hedgehog — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:02:45 +0000

Fellowbird, I am more than happy for those in Yorkshire, who experience the familiarity of the language to continue using it themselves. I have family living there. I find it distancing, not having grown up with that way of speaking, and I do find it to be something that gets in the way when I pray. It doesn’t feel real for me. This in spite of my knowing that such language is familiar. It isn’t to those who don’t use it as such regularly, was the point I was trying to make to Clark.