Criticism of Mormon Sacred Texts - King James Version

King James Version

Main articles: King James Version and LDS edition of the Bible See also: King James Only movement, Bible version debate, and List of Bible verses not included in modern translations

The eighth Article of Faith of the church states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly".

English-speaking church members tend to use the King James Version (also known the Authorised Version) of the Bible in an LDS Church-published edition. This includes LDS-oriented chapter headings, footnotes referencing books in the Standard Works, and select passages from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. The church's First Presidency has stated that "hile other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations." In Spanish speaking countries, church members have recently been using the "Santa Biblia: Reina-Valera 2009" (Holy Bible: Reina-Valera 2009). Latter-day Saints in other non-English speaking areas may use other versions of the Bible. Though the Bible is part of the LDS canon and members believe it to be the word of God, they believe that omissions and mistranslations are present in even the earliest known manuscripts. They claim that the errors in the Bible have led to incorrect interpretations of certain passages. Thus, as church founder Joseph Smith explained, the church believes the Bible to be the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly." The church teaches that "he most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations".

The KJV is notably more Latinate than previous English versions, especially the Geneva Bible. This results in part from the academic stylistic preferences of a number of the translators – several of whom admitted to being more comfortable writing in Latin than in English – but was also, in part, a consequence of the royal proscription against explanatory notes. Hence, where the Geneva Bible might use a common English word – and gloss its particular application in a marginal note – the Authorized Version tends rather to prefer a technical term, frequently in Anglicised Latin. Consequently, although the King had instructed the translators to use the Bishops' Bible as a base text, the New Testament in particular owes much stylistically to the Catholic Rheims New Testament, whose translators had also been concerned to find English equivalents for Latin terminology. In addition, the translators of the New Testament books habitually quote Old Testament names in the renderings familiar from the Vulgate Latin, rather than in their Hebrew forms (e.g. "Elias", "Jeremias" for "Elijah", "Jeremiah").

While the Authorized Version remains among the most widely sold, modern critical New Testament translations differ substantially from it in a number of passages, primarily because they rely on source manuscripts not then accessible to (or not then highly regarded by) early 17th century biblical scholarship. In the Old Testament, there are also many differences from modern translations that are based not on manuscript differences, but on a different understanding of ancient Hebrew vocabulary or grammar by the translators. For example, in modern translations it is clear that Job 28: 1–11 is referring throughout to mining operations, which is not at all apparent from the text of the Authorized Version.