Earlier this week, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints updated its General Handbook, most notably in the section regarding Bible translations. For those of us following the conversation at From the Desk—including the interview and copost with Joshua Sears last week—the timing feels serendipitous.
For the better part of a century, the cultural assumption in the Church has been that the King James Version (KJV) is the only “safe” translation, a sentiment largely inspired by J. Reuben Clark’s mid-20th-century defense of the text. However, the new Handbook update marks a monumental shift, officially validating what faithful LDS scholars have been arguing for years: that faithful study often requires moving beyond 17th-century English.
The New Policy
While the Handbook maintains that members should generally use Church-published editions (the KJV) in meetings to ensure “consistent understanding of doctrine,” it now explicitly validates personal study with other texts and even occasional use in Church meetings. It states: “Other Bible translations may also be used. Some individuals may benefit from translations that are doctrinally clear and also easier to understand.”
The update even categorizes approved examples by reading level:
Holy Bible, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
1611: King James, first edition
1769: King James, Oxford edition
1979: King James, Church edition
2013: King James, revised
Examples of Other Translations (by Reading Level)
9th–11th Grade (Ages 14 and above):
6th–8th Grade (Ages 11–13):
3rd Grade (Ages 8 and Above):
Vindication of Scholarship
This policy aligns well with the long-standing advice of scholars like Benjamin Spackman and Thomas Wayment. Years ago, Spackman noted in 2014 that “the absolute best and easiest thing you can do to increase the quality and frequency of your Bible study is to replace/supplement your KJV with a different translation.”
Spackman has historically recommended the NRSV as the scholarly gold standard and the ESV for readability. However, he offers a specific caution regarding the NIV—one of the options now listed in the Handbook. He has strongly recommended against it because “it’s pretty flawed, and especially when we come to Paul, Evangelical bias is clear.” And while the Church steered clear of any single-author translations (for understandable reasons), Spackman does highlight the Robert Alter Hebrew Bible translation with commentary, the David Bently Hart New Testament Translation, and the Thomas Wayment New Testament Translation.
Text vs. Study Bible
Navigating these new waters requires some literacy regarding what you are actually buying, a point Thomas Wayment has emphasized in his interviews, such as a 2023 interview with From the Desk about why Latter-day Saints use the King James Version. It is vital not to conflate the translation with the printing or a specific study edition.
“Frequently, when I am asked questions about modern translations, the questioner conflates translations and printings of the Bible,” Wayment explained. He notes that excellent resources like the Jewish Annotated New Testament are actually the NRSV text paired with scholarly notes.
This distinction is crucial when approaching the ESV. While the ESV text is a respected (if patriarchal) formal translation, the ESV Study Bible (published by Crossway) contains commentary that is openly antagonistic toward Latter-day Saints. Thus, both Benjamin Spackman and Joshua Sears have strongly recommended against investing in the ESV Study Bible. The anti-Mormon bias, however, is in the notes, not the scripture itself. A free online version of the ESV is great; the specific “Study Bible” edition is what is best avoided.
The Church’s Justification
Perhaps most interesting is how the Church explains this shift. It actively pushes back against the old myth that modern Bibles are watered down or uninspired. In a press release accompanying the update, Elder Jörg Klebingat of the Scriptures Committee stated:
“There’s a misconception that modern translations of the Bible are less than faithful to the ancient sources — that in modernizing the language, translators have compromised or dumbed down the doctrine,” says Elder Jörg Klebingat of the Seventy, a member of the Scriptures Committee. “In many cases, that simply isn’t true. Modern translators often have access to manuscripts that were not available to early translators. And most modern translations were produced by faithful scholars and linguists who are utterly convinced that the Bible is the word of God. The simplified language they use supports — rather than compromises — understanding of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.”
This is a stark departure from the “KJV is the most inspired” rhetoric of the past century, acknowledging that 200 years of biblical scholarship have actually improved our access to the word of God, and it has clear parallels to earlier statements by Thomas Wayment and Joshua Sears.
A Hard Line on the Book of Mormon
However, the door to modern language has not been flung wide open. While the Church invites us to read Paul in modern English, it has doubled down on protecting the text of the Restoration. The new Handbook section explicitly states that the First Presidency “has not authorized any other efforts to update or rewrite scripture text into modern or informal language,” applying this policy to both “traditional methods” and “artificial intelligence.”
While the language is a little more ambiguous than previous instructions to resist these modernized takes on Restoration scriptures, it still makes it clear that things like Sinclair O’Neil’s The Book of Mormon Simplified, Timothy B. Wilson’s Book of Mormon (Plain English Version), or the LDS Publishing Doctrine and Covenants in Simple Modern English and The Book of Mormon in Simple Modern English (for which details of translators and publishers seem elusive) are not authorized by the Church. (These types of efforts to modernize the Book of Mormon seem to have proliferated in recent years, though I remember there being some interesting ones from the 1990s and early 2000s as well. I just can’t find them now, and it will drive me crazy for a while.)
So, while you are now officially encouraged to pick up an NRSV to better understand the Epistle to the Romans, “Plain English” versions of the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants remain off the table. The Church is embracing the plurality of the biblical tradition, but keeping a tight rein on its proprietary canon.
List of Resources:
- From the Desk Interviews:
- Church Handbook Updates:
- Other:
Leave a Reply