Posted July 31, 2026

Photo of some Bibles at the Utah Christian Research Center located in Draper, UT, which we believe offers to largest selection of modern Bibles in the entire state of Utah.

In late 2025, the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints decided to encourage their members to study modern translations of the Bible to supplement their reading of the King James Version (KJV).

The change to the “General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” was announced on December 16, 2025, in an official Newsroom article titled “New Guidance on Bible Translations for Latter-day Saints.”

Six Protestant translations were specifically recommended in no certain order: the New International Reader’s Version, the New International Version (NIV), the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, the New Living Translation, and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The article mentioned how this list was not meant to be exhaustive.

The KJV that was originally translated in 1611 and later revised in 1769 is not going away as the church’s official version; the article stated that “generally, members should use a preferred or Church-published edition of the Bible in Church classes and meetings.” But it went on to state, “The adjusted handbook section also points to examples of English Bible translations that members can consider as they seek to better understand the teachings of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.”

Why did the LDS Church make this change?

Over the past few years, we have privately discussed the possibilities of the church someday allowing women to hold the priesthood, tolerating hot drinks as a beverage of choice, or recognizing homosexuals as faithful members. However, never did we think that it would be possible that the leaders would officially encourage the reading of modern Bible translations.

It may have been assumed that the Joseph Smith Translation (JST, or the “Inspired Version”) would have been recommended first. After all, the church paid $192.5 million in March 2024 for three historical buildings and a variety of historical items, including the original JST manuscript. This means the LDS Church owns the JST copyright, if “copyright” of a work this old was even an issue.

Endorsing the JST would have certainly caused many problems with scholars, as there is no manuscript evidence for any of Smith’s changes to the KJV. Why would church leaders want to enter that quagmire? It would have been a complexity that would in too many ways embarrass the church. This certainly was never a possibility.

Still, it seems strange that Protestant Bible translations were endorsed. One reason for doing so and admitted by the church is that modern versions are easier for people to read. Apostle Dale G. Renlund, who chairs the LDS Church’s Scriptures Committee, described the KJV as “beautiful and powerful” but “for some it can be difficult to understand.” Since the KJV was first published in 1611 and modified several times, the use of the antiquated Elizabethan English is a chore for most modern readers to understand. 

A second possible reason for the change is this could make Mormonism look ecumenically minded. In recent years, many Latter-day Saints have often sidled over to the “Christian” side, even calling themselves Christian. The benefit is that Christians and Mormons can now have productive conversations centered on the message of the Bible without having to quibble about which version is being used.

Before 2026, pulling out a modern translation in any discussion could be the death knell of any on-the-street conversation. Now, if the Latter-day Saint does not have a modern translation, perhaps the Christian can offer to give one away. What a great investment!

A final reason for allowing modern translations could be that some members were already reading different versions, even though this practice was not previously authorized. As one Latter-day Saint who wrote on MRM’s Facebook page said, “I’ve been using several translations for a while.” Yet another commenter, a Christian, wrote, “The gaslighting has begun, as I’ve read many of the LDS comments claiming ‘we’ve always allowed other translations.’ That is certainly not true.”

That second responder is correct. MRM board member David Johnson, who served as an LDS bishop in Utah, was once called on the carpet because his superiors discovered that he had been reading a New American Standard Bible. He was told in no uncertain terms to refrain from using anything but the KJV. Another missionary I know was disciplined during his mission for using the NIV.

Before January 2026, we did not know of any Deseret Bookstores—owned by the LDS Church—carrying a Bible version other than the church’s authorized KJV. Yet by mid-January, employees at several Utah stores reported that they each had at least two or three different recommended versions in stock.

We had five or six LDS families who were looking to purchase Bibles visit the Utah Christian Research Center in Draper, UT during the last part of December 2025. The visitors were generally quite tickled about finding the recommended translations, as one said she searched secular and Catholic bookstores but could not find them.

I asked several of these faithful Mormons who visited if they had ever considered reading any other Bible translation before the announcement. All said no. When I asked one woman why, she said, “It didn’t seem right. But now that our leaders say we can read them, I feel like it’s OK.”

On December 23^rd, an hour before we would close for the holidays, a local LDS bishop sent his mother into the Center while he communicated on her speaker phone. I asked why he wanted to purchase modern translations. He replied, “I want my people to read the Bible and know what it’s saying.”

Needless to say, his mother spent close to $200 for multiple versions that the bishop said would be placed in the church library where his congregants would have access to them.

Is the KJV “superior”?

The idea of allowing modern Bible translations be a part of the devotional lives of devout members is different from what was taught before December 2025. In his 1956 book titled Why the King James Version, J. Reuben Clark—the first counselor in the First Presidency from 1959 until his death in 1961—argued that the KJV was superior to the Revised Standard Version (RSV) that was published in 1952.

In more than 400 pages, Clark railed against modern versions while at the same time he uplifted the KJV as the best translation. What makes his stance ironic is that church leaders now recommend the NRSV, a translation based on the RSV.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie was another severe critic of modern translations. He said,

“What of the Other Translations of the World? In answer we say: Forget them; they are of so little value that it is almost a waste of time to delve into them. We take a liberal view to even rate them as one on our scale. They are not binding upon us, and in general they simply set forth the religious predilections of their translator … I question the wisdom of treasuring up the translation views of the wise and the learned who really have nothing in the inspired sense to contribute to an understanding of eternal truth” (Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 1989, 288. Ellipsis mine).

In a 1992 First Presidency statement, Ezra Taft Benson, along with his counselors (and future presidents) Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson, wrote,

“While 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. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (“Letter Reaffirms use of King James Version Bible,” LDS Church News, June 20, 1992, 3).

Just 15 years ago, the church placed the following statement in their official monthly periodical: “Based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than recent versions (“Joseph Smith and the King James Bible,” Ensign, August 2011, 45).

Granted, the primary use of the KJV is still encouraged by the leadership. But if the KJV is “doctrinally more accurate” than modern versions, why would they even recommend the modern versions in the first place?

Despite the evidence that the leadership discouraged modern versions, Seventy Jörg Klebingat, a member of the Scriptures Committee, touted these in the December 2025 Newsroom article. He said,

“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. 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.”    

What was clearly taught in the past by reputable leaders, including top general authorities, is now contradicted by the present leadership. Were past statements of these leaders supposed to have such a short expiration date?

Doubling down on the new “guidance”

In the August 2026 Liahona magazine—an official publication for adult members of the LDS Church—John Hilton III admitted that “some sincere readers of all ages find Bible phrasing difficult, and it’s hard to gain spiritual insights from the scriptures if you do not understand them” (35). Hilton—a professor of ancient scripture at church-owned Brigham Young University—said,

“Some Church members around the world are discovering multiple Bible translations can deepen scripture study and bring the Savior’s teachings closer to their hearts and minds. In some cases, it can give members greater understanding and deepen their connections with the Savior” (36).

One story told by Hilton concerned Seth from Utah whose children had autism and ADHD. Understanding the KJV became harder for them, with difficult language and sentence structure. Hilton reported,

“When the family began reading in their home from a translation that was easier to understand, things changed. ‘Suddenly, my kids could take turns reading aloud, actually understand what they were saying, and talk about what it meant,” Seth said, “Scripture study became a real conversation” (36).

With the church telling the membership that it’s OK to do more than just put their toes in the water. Indeed, they can fully immerse themselves in reading modern Protestant translations of the Bible, most of which were translated in the past few decades.

But I feel there are several questions the article does not answer:

1. Why did it take so long for the church to decide modern translations of the Bible are edifying for its membership? Was the KJV more understandable in the 1950s for church members to read than it is today? How about during the 1980s and 1990s? Could people better understand the KJV then? Or, really, anytime in the 20th or 21st centuries? To me, it seems that allowing more accessible translation was a long time in coming.
2. Why doesn’t the church create its own translation of the Bible? Especially since the church has biblical scholars like John Hilton and the resources to fund such a project, it would seem the time might be right for an LDS Standard Version. And since the church owns the very same seer stone that Joseph Smith supposedly used to translate the Book of Mormon plates into English, perhaps church authorities could reuse this stone to help in a new translation process. Just saying.
3. Will Latter-day Saints read their Bible more now that they will be able to better understand what they are reading?

Conclusion: Could this change influence Latter-day Saints?

It seems that allowing modern translations of the Bible in personal reading could lead more Latter-day Saints closer toward biblical Christianity than Mormonism, especially if the readers can better understand God’s Word by reading a modern Bible version.

Consider one commentator on the MRM Facebook page who wrote, “Reading a different translation of the Bible led me to leave the LDS church. Once I could understand the message the Spirit opened my eyes.”

Perhaps many Latter-day Saints had never considered using a modern translation. This is good news! The new policy is nothing less than MRM’s dream come true!