What should the church do?

Let's don't make this about Tex, Lebowski, SEIQ or anyone else.

Like I have said before, the issue of errors in biblical translation is one of our articles of faith. One would think that we, of all people, would be at the forefront of textual criticism and the adoption of demonstrably-improved translations. That is why I think BY's statement above is right on the money. Ironically, we cling to the KJV.

So what should the church do?

I agree, though I think it wouldn't hurt the church to be a little less conservative on this.

Hope so, since Elder Holland is quoting them in GC.

Like I said:

I guess I was looking for something specific.

Do you not see any compelling reasons to remain with the KJV?

As an unrelated tangent, do you see any irony in how easily some people will quote from JoD when it suits their tastes, and decry quotes from the same source when it doesn't?

Despite the fact that I'd very much like to have an LDS edition of the NRSV as soon as yesterday, there's another approach that the Church could take in the meantime.

Some churches have authorized study bibles. These bibles are not primarily for use during Sunday services (although, in my experience, they make the occasional appearance), but they do have the official stamp of approval for personal use. LDS Bible scholars already use many different English translations (which is to say nothing of their work in the Greek and Hebrew), and it would be nice for this practice to get a nod that would encourage others too.

I also wouldn't mind an authorized ESL Bible (the GNT or CEV would work nicely). There are few things more needlessly absurd than trying to shove Jacobian English down today's immigrant investigators.

I like many of these ideas.

This debate shoulders what I believe plagues most biblical Mormon scholars, a lack of credibility in the academic world.

IMHO, it seems most LDS scholars either commence doing something with FARMS which has such a low volume of scholarship or interest outside of LDS world to be almost meaningless, or to engage in plain apologetics for LDS faith.

Now, somebody will point to an exception, but in other fields, we have accomplished LDS scholars not engaged in apologetics. The best scholars which touch upon these subjects are Givens and Bushman, not biblical scholars per se, but a literary and an historical scholar.

We need LDS who research and write cutting edge stuff on textual criticism or on the Documentary Hypothesis with such skill and determination that the nonLDS scholars, the Germans and other Continentals take note, so that when their scholarship is turned to LDS issues, they have credibility.

It almost seems as if BY is challenging LDS scholars to be on the cutting edge, and as Henry Eyring argued to be on the side of truth, even if risk is involved. What too often happens, LDS scholars end up with no support and often lose faith instead of forging ahead.

These last two years I have refamiliarized myself with the quality of LDS scholarship in religious matters, and the quality is very disparate, some of it good, some of it horrible but almost none of it first rate. Why is that? It isn't true in other disciplines.