Mormon Media Observer: Celebrating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • ? Fort Knox, KY
    Jan. 13, 2011 12:22 p.m.

    Why should the LDS Church remove what is said in the 8th Article of Faith when it has no need to? No, the LDS Church is not deceiving anyone.

    The last couple paragraphs of the LDS Bible Dictionary: Bible, give a good explanation of why the church uses the KJV versus any other English translation and the Churchs position regarding the Bible containing the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

    The same News of the Church, August 1992, Ensign article Vanka references, explains the same thing. This was also published in the Church News, through the Deseret News on June 20, 1992. "Letter Reaffirms Use of King James Version of Bible."

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 13, 2011 12:21 p.m.

    Actually, Luther opposed even more books than what I suggested. F. C. Baur held that both Timothies and Titus are 2nd century creations, although he is an early practictioner of "higher criticism" (which I may have poorly explained before) and probably not an intellectual forerunner of most modern Evangelicals.

    However, in many ways the key is that cmtam is ignoring the fact that the existence of many different translations of the Bible means that you can not subscribe to the absolute accuracy of the Bible, only of one particular text of it.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 13, 2011 12:11 p.m.

    At one point the attacks of Joseph Smith's version of Isaiah were built around his quotes from "Deutero-Isaiah" which was said to be post-exilic.

    Some of Joseph Smith's alterations of the Isaiah text are directly supported by the Septuagint. On the other hand, none of the other Isiah manuscripts are anywhere near as old as the one that Nephi had (his was at least 400 years older than the Isaiah scroll) so why his quotes need to fully agree with manuscripts hundreds of years later is a good question.

    The Isaiah 29 issue is even more complexed. Nephi tells us he does liken the scriptures. Thus is is not clear how much he is quoting passages from Isaiah and how much he is explicating those passages.

    Your arguments also ignore that the JST is a "plainer translation". At times the point is not to make the text closer to what was originally there. Since the Bible was written by failable men, the Lord may direct Joseph Smith to fix faults there were in the original text. There is also the option of Joseph Smith rendering the text so it better conveys meaning in English.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 13, 2011 12:04 p.m.

    Twin Lights,
    In support of your comments, if I remember right Martin Luther wanted to remove the Book of James from the Bible.

    cmtam is clearly either ignorant of or deliberately ignoring the real source of attacks on the veracity of the Bible. Why did leaders of the LDS Church in the 1920s decide having future seminary teachers go to the University of Chicago divinity school was a bad idea? Because it was infected with a bunch of protestant teachers who subscribed to the "historical Jeses" and "higher criticism" models. The first basically posits that almost everything in the Gospels is false, and that Jesus not only did not say most of what is attributed to him but did not teach anything at all similar. The second is built on the notions that virtually all of Genesis is false, and really does not give much room for accepting things like a literal resurection.

    If you want to talk about rejecting the Bible you need to talk about early-20th century Protestant modernists. More recently Episcopalian bishops have gone on tirades against Jesus and Episcopal priests have worshipped Gaea over Jesus.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 13, 2011 11:54 a.m.

    When I was in 11th grade in a public high school ou text book for our English class contained 1st Corinthians 13 (Paul on the need for charity, "though I speak with the tongues of angels" etc.) and I believe also some passages from Isaiah. We did not read them in class but they were in the text book.

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    Jan. 13, 2011 9:01 a.m.

    If LDS really do believe the Bible to be the word of God, their 8th article of faith should not contain the disclaimer: "as far as it is translated correctly".

    If the LDS believe this, then it is incumbent upon them to identify the "correctly translated" version of the Bible they believe to be the word of God.

    Since the LDS do not claim that the KJV is the correct translation, then they clearly (by their 8th article of faith) do not believe the KJV is the word of god.

    You can't have it both ways.

    Either remove the disclaimer and qualifier, or stop deceiving people saying you believe the Bible is the word of god! You don't! Your official publications and statements from Church leaders prove it.

  • Pentacone Batley, W.Yorkshire
    Jan. 13, 2011 4:07 a.m.

    Dear All,

    In my First Comment I mentioned about our President Thomas S Monson being involved with the Current LDS Bible, which includes the JS Translations. I see that no-one else is Commenting on this point.

    So, please "click" on "Archives", at the Top of this Deseret News Page, and Insert 01 September 2009.

    If you then Scroll down, you will find an Article about the Death of "Robert J Matthews".

    Please read it carefully!!

  • ? Fort Knox, KY
    Jan. 12, 2011 6:19 p.m.

    If the LDS don't believe the Bible, then why was the Old Testament the course of study in Sunday school last year and this year it is the New Testament? Every four years both testaments are studied rotated along with the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

    Why go through all that effort they've gone through to produce an LDS edition of the KJV as explained in the BYUTV program?

    If LDS don't believe in the Bible, why is it included in the quad (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price)?

    LDS do believe the Bible, in practice and as stated in the 8th Article of Faith.

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    Jan. 12, 2011 5:44 p.m.

    To further prove my point (and demonstrate that on some matters I know more than some apologists), I will add the following:

    In the August 1992 Ensign, an official statement was made that confirms exactly what I am telling you:

    First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible, Ensign, 1992, 80.

    "Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version.... The 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."

    In other words, LDS believe there is NO version of the Bible in existence that is "translated correctly", and will only pick and choose those parts of the Bible or those translations and interpretations that agree with their own peculiar doctrines and claims.

    So, once again, I will repeat: NO, LDS do NOT believe the Bible to be the word of God. In practice as well as in their official Article of Faith #8, they completely discount and dismiss the Bible as the word of God.

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    Jan. 12, 2011 5:43 p.m.

    Twin Lights, Bill, and the other apologists...

    I stand all amazed at the accusations you make. You insist that critics do not know what they are talking about, in the same comments as you assert that the JST is canonized in the LDS Standard Works.

    Your own Bible Dictionary and Guide to the Scriptures on the Church's official website tells us:

    "Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, this translation does offer many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the Bible."

    The few EXCERPTS from the JST are located under "Study Helps", not the official Standard Works.

    The KJV of the Bible is the official, canonized Bible for the LDS Church.

    But whenever a verse disagrees with LDS doctrine (or the prevailing opinions in the Church), you attribute it to "mistranslation", and dismiss out of hand anyone who can explain the correct translation and interpretation because they know the original languages.

    So, please, don't try to deceive us on this point and tell us you actually believe the Bible to be the word of God. You don't! You do not believe that the "correct translation" exists. Admit it and move on.

  • cmtam lake forest, ca
    Jan. 12, 2011 10:27 a.m.

    Twin Lights, "The point stands that Martin Luther had a more significant problem with far more biblical text than do those of the Mormon faith."

    The inspiration of Scripture is a supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit who,through different personalities and literary styles of the chosen human authors,invested the very words of the holy Scripture alone[Sola Scriptura,the cry of the reformation] and in their entirety, as the very word of God without error in all that they teach(including history and science) and is thereby the infallible rule and final authority for the faith and the practice of believers. Do you still agree with Martin Luther?

    Which leads Christians wanting to be with God, but Mormons want to be God(exaltation). Final post, regards.

  • Stay the Course Provo, UT
    Jan. 12, 2011 7:57 a.m.

    Vanka I have read all of the posts
    Your statement that these posts have become a "praise the Book of Mormon blog" is extreme exaggeration
    Read them again

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 12, 2011 7:05 a.m.


    The JST is part of the Bible published by the church.

    In the Wentworth Letter, Joseph was writing for a non-LDS audience. The JST was not published during Joseph's lifetime.

    Your point seems to be that if we don't believe every word of the translations then existent, then we believe none of it. I think that overstates the case. Joseph's own teachings show a reverence for the Bible.

    I have seen no anti-biblical among the members I have known. Quite the contrary. I have studied the Bible for years in church classes.

    I did not mean to indicate that the issue was trivial - simply that there are other issues that overshadow this one.


    The point stands that Martin Luther had a more significant problem with far more biblical text than do those of the Mormon faith.

    I am not talking about apocryphal books. However, the statement you cite by Luther is similar to Joseph's statement on the apocrypha.

    I am thankful for Luther and the other Reformers. Theirs was a great task. Protestantism was, of course, considered heretical (sect, cult) by the RC Church.

    This is my last post. Regards.

  • Pentacone Batley, W.Yorkshire
    Jan. 12, 2011 4:18 a.m.

    Please do not forget the "Pearl of Great Price" when considering the JS Translations of the Ancient Biblical Events.

  • donn layton, Ut
    Jan. 11, 2011 6:17 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska, Elder McConkie said,"The JST gives a new meaning of the first chapter of John.

    "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son And the gospel was the word, and the word was with God and the word was with the Son and the Son was with God and the Son was of God."(John 1:1 JST)?odd
    "In the beginning was the* Word,and the *Word was with God and the*Word was God"(John 1:1 NIV)

    Word(Logos 3056) 1.The expression of a thought.
    *The title of the Son of God. (rhema 4487) written, or spoken word.

    And no man [Abraham, Moses, etc.] hath seen God at any time ,except he [JS] hath borne record of his Son(John1:19 JST).
    No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. (John 1:18 NET)

    Bethabara beyond the Jordan, (John 1:34 JST), in Bethany "on the other side of the Jordan (John 1:28 NIV)Early MS support. Joseph Smith was wrong about the location of Jesus' baptism "in Bethabara" (Nephi 10:9).

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Jan. 11, 2011 5:25 p.m.

    To Vanka: Actually the JST is canonized as part of the LDS Standard Works. The entire translation is part of the LDS King James version of the Bible. Secondly, the LDS Church recognizes the KJV of the Bible to be the most correct translation from Greek to English. That is why it uses that translation as its English Bible.

    The Church uses extensively the teachings and translation of the Bible in all of its doctrine classes. Its amazing to me that critics try to shy away from this when they fail to look at Bible we use. In fact, I have found that we will rely more on the JST translation than just the KJV only. This is my fourth blog on this site so I can't make any others.

    It just shows that our critics most of the time really don't know what they are talking about.

  • cmtam lake forest, ca
    Jan. 11, 2011 5:07 p.m.

    RE: Twin Lights, Martin Luther ... He had what can best be described as an on and off again relationship with several books in the Bible and I dont think he ever reconciled himself to the Epistle of James."
    Canonicity is a different issue than textual lower or hgher criticism.
    antilegomena" (books "spoken against") and the "homologoumena" (books unanimously attested as apostolic), Luther's opinions regarding James and
    Revelation did not prevent him from revering these books and teaching from them as God's Word.

    Martin Luther on James and Revelation, I would not hereby prevent anyone from including him or extolling him as he pleases. Theologia et
    Apologia , p.183.
    But Luther had very significant issues with the Apocryphal books,as a rule of faith. In fact the Council of Trent was a counter reformation move to
    affirm them as authoritative scripture by the RCC.
    Luther knew that the reformation would open the doors for sects and cults,but he thought the average man needed access to the Bible. Mormons should be thankful for Luther . "A simple plowboy can understand the gospel, you need a priest to make it difficult. Martin Luther

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2011 4:43 p.m.

    Twin Lights,

    I would love to believe your claim, but the facts show otherwise.

    You wrote: "As to an accurate translation, I suppose we would reference the Joseph Smith translation in conjunction with KJV."

    Unfortunately, your own Church does not recognize the Joseph Smith Translation as canonical (it is not part of the LDS Standard Works).

    Moreover, if Joseph Smith had meant "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated in the JST", don't you think he would have said so?

    The point holds and is irrefutable:

    So long as no "correct translation" of the Bible exists on the face of the earth, the caveat in the LDS Article of Faith #8 can ONLY mean that LDS do NOT believe the Bible (that exists on earth) is the word of God.

    That anti-Bible sentiment among Mormons also explains why this comment section, on an article about the Bible, turned into a "praise the Book of Mormon" blog!

    That is not trivial in any way, and is a major reason most Biblical Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Jan. 11, 2011 4:36 p.m.

    To cmtam: The problem is that the Chapter of Isaiah you mention also is found in the Book of Mormon completely different than what is in the Bible. There is relative reason for this but that I don't think matters. What matters is that Joseph Smith didn't translate Greek to English as many of the translators did. His entire script was totally revelation. That is the difference between his inspired version of the King James Version and that commonly used by most Christians. Many call him a false prophet but all of the teachings and the doctrines of the LDS Church is found in the Bible. The problem is that many Christians go with what came out of the many creeds hundreds of years after the death of the Savior and the Apostles/Individuals that wrote the books of the New Testament. It all boils down to translation and ones own interpretation of the Bible.

    Again I will take the words of a an individual I classify as a prophet of God over any scholar. The reason for this is most scholars go with the normal teaching and not by revelation.

  • ? Fort Knox, KY
    Jan. 11, 2011 3:54 p.m.

    It is blessing to have the Bible no matter the translation, especially considering what many went through to translate it.

    Some might find this program interesting, "That Promised Day: The Coming Forth of the LDS Scriptures," shown through BYUTV.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 11, 2011 1:57 p.m.


    The folks I am thinking of are hardly liberals nor are they fans of higher criticism.

    I am talking about conservative and serious students of the scripture who I have heard on standard Christian radio shows (which around here are quite conservative).

    Look up Antilegomena.

    The first one who comes to mind is Martin Luther himself. He had what can best be described as an on and off again relationship with several books in the Bible and I dont think he ever reconciled himself to the Epistle of James.

    Also there is on-going controversy reference Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever."

    Just two points but all I have time for right now.

  • cmtam lake forest, ca
    Jan. 11, 2011 1:22 p.m.

    Twin lights: "No one would describe these folks as anti-Bible. Yet generally,Mormons have even fewer problems with the Bible than some of these folks".
    True,agnostics inside the Christian Churches cause more problems than the cults.
    Inside the pale of Christianity you have liberal wing likes "The Jesus seminar"and the secular theologians(agnostics) of higher criticism, like those who teach 'the two Isaiahs'. Yet the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls
    especially the Isaiah scrolls(200 B.C.)which virtually agrees with the Isaiah(KJV)we have today ,as well as the Greek Septuagint Isaiah.(250 B.C.) more importantly, The Apostle John quotes Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10 in (John 12:38-41).
    The Apostle believed there was only one Isaiah.

    JS makes hundreds of changes to the book of Isaiah in the inspired version,even to(Isaiah 29:14 JST)the prophecy of the BoM? Which his changes are refuted by the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint and Masoretic texts.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 11, 2011 10:27 a.m.


    Mainline and even fundamentalist Christians often express doubts about certain Biblical passages.

    I have even heard or read Biblical commentators who don't agree with the inclusion of certain books in the New Testament.

    No one would describe these folks as anti-Bible. Yet generally, Mormons have even fewer problems with the Bible than some of these folks.

    I don't think issues of Biblical translation are the root of most other Christians problems with those of the Mormon faith. The translation issues are a relative sideshow.

  • cmtam lake forest, ca
    Jan. 11, 2011 9:22 a.m.

    RE: Twin Lights,"In my experience,the translation caveat is a very minor one with precious little that is actually excepted". I would agree but,Mormon comments about the KJV. "The Bible is not a sufficient guide; its only the
    history of the people who lived 1800 years ago." Orson Hyde.
    "ignorant translators, careless transcribers ,or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." Joseph Smith. And Mormons wonder why Christians have issues with them.
    This is why Christians,"contend for the faith which was delivered unto the saints".(Jude 3)

  • diamondladi Gambrills, MD
    Jan. 10, 2011 11:07 p.m.

    I agree with the writer about the wonderful influence of the King James version of the Bible on the English language and its writing structure. (Not even counting its wonderful influence on the character and morality of a people, and its ability to bring people to Christ) The King James version is credited with influencing William Shakespeare who in turn influence the language.
    The poet Emily Dickinson's primary reading material was the KJV, Shakespeare, and Hymnals. It has been a great influence on many great writers. Personally I feel it's poetry and prose are even more beautiful because of the truth they hold.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 10, 2011 9:16 p.m.


    I believe the Bible to be the word of God. It is my belief that most other members would say the same. I spend a lot of time reading and trying to understand the Bible better. I certainly would not do so if I was not convinced of its veracity.

    In my experience, the translation caveat is a very minor one with precious little that is actually excepted. As to an accurate translation, I suppose we would reference the Joseph Smith translation in conjunction with KJV.

    Certainly we believe the church to true. But that is no more arrogant than the claims of Roman Catholics or of certain protestant denominations that believe that their doctrines are correct to the exclusion of others.

    As to whom God approves and loves. From D&C 1:30 " . . . the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually "

    Whatever God's feelings are toward the church, as individuals, we have no preeminent claim on his love or favor. We are all his children but we all fall somewhat short of their potential.

  • sharrona layton, Ut
    Jan. 10, 2011 6:51 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska: This also proves that the King James version is probably more precise than the so called modern translation you are using. I see nothing where this comes to anywhere near explaining how Joseph Smith could not have translated it correctly except it is strictly your opinion, wrong.
    But deliver us from evil.(Mt 6:13). LDS Bible footnote d, Gr. Protect us from the evil one .

    Tou ponerou, or the one of evil.(Mt 6:13 Greek N.T.)JS followed the poor KJV translations,

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Jan. 10, 2011 5:00 p.m.

    To Sharrona:

    On many of the verses and the differences there really is no difference. It is a different intrepretation is all. To deliver one from evil is no different than to deliver us from the evil one. The same is said when you state, the only one of the father is the same as the ONLY BEGOTTEN. The difference is intrepretation. To try and take one translation over another is completel idiotic. To try and use this to say Joseph Smith was mistaken is totally ludicrous. This also proves that the King James version is probably more precise than the so called modern translation you are using.

    I see nothing where this comes to anywhere near explaining how Joseph Smith could not have translated it correctly except it is strictly your opinion and that of cmtam and others that it isn't. Under whose authority does it mean Joseph Smith did. If you cite other scholars then you are as mistaken as they are.

    Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God. That there is no doubt for me. To cite other scriptures is beyond belief except it meets with your intrepretations.

  • sharrona layton, Ut
    Jan. 10, 2011 1:16 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska,"His(JS) understanding of the Bible was greater than many others who had been schooled in such for most of their lives, thus the so called misunderstanding never occurred,"?
    And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (3Nephi 13:12)
    And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (Mt 6:13&6:14JST)

    "Although the KJV renders this 'deliver us from evil,' the presence of the article indicates not evil (force), but the evil one himself. In Matthew's Gospel, such deliverance from the devil seems to be linked to Jesus' temptation in 4:1-10: Because the Spirit led him into temptation by the evil one". Daniel B. Wallace. Should be, "the evil one(MT 6:13 NIV). JS follows the poor KJV Translation.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Jan. 10, 2011 12:16 p.m.

    Joseph Smith knew how to read and understood what he read. There is no doubt about this. The thing is that he couldn't formulate this into words as so many feel he could. Emma Smith, his wife, stated that he could never have written the Book of Mormon because for all practical purposes he couldn't form any sentences or paragraphs properly.

    However, as he got older and became more schooled in the teachings personally by the Savior and others his understanding increased. This is what set him apart from others.

    His understanding of the Bible was greater than many others who had been schooled in such for most of their lives, thus the so called misunderstanding never occurred. If you believe in revelation then you must agree the what Joseph did was greater than those who were schooled. If you don't then no matter what is said you never will believe it. Only through the testimony of the Holy Ghost will one ever come to understand that Joseph Smith was and is who he said he was.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    Jan. 10, 2011 11:52 a.m.

    I disagree that schools have instituted naturalism. The efforts to maintain religious neutrality do have side effects, but the school systems generally do not propose a dichotmous paradigm that posits naturalism against theology. This in spite of some educators who are cavalier in pursuing this agenda independent of the school system. Rather, schools in the sciences should be pursuing empircism, and scientific theory. They should honestly try and present the scientific view, and be forthright in where the evidence is strong and where it is weak. Some do this well, whereas some don't. The unfortunate side effect of religious neutrality is that it presents a skewed vision of world and national history and thought, if taken too far. Students should learn of religious traditions to be prepared for a global enviroment. Schools should just not be advocating, that is the sole responsibility of parents and Church's. If these groups oppose the scientific view of things, they should then provide a better explanation. So long as schools are not advocating religion, affirmatively or negatively, this should not be seen as an encroachment on religious freedom, just education as to how science has developed.

  • brokenclay Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 10, 2011 10:17 a.m.

    Well said, mormoncowboy. Joseph Smith did a lot of writing and reading. It's hard to believe he was anything close to illiterate.

    As far as religion in public schools, the state has instituted a religion already there: naturalism. I think the model used in the Philippines and many other countries best coheres with our constitutional Freedom of Religion. In their public schools, all religions are allowed equal voice (not just one religion, as it is in America). This would be true freedom of religion, not the religious monopoly we have here in America.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Jan. 10, 2011 10:10 a.m.

    I taught as an Adjunct at a small college for about 10 years, and I have to agree with Lane Williams, that, for the most part, college students don't know how to write. My experience was before texting became popular, so that wasn't a factor. My students didn't understand sentence structure, grammar, punctuation, or spelling. They seemed to write as they thought, and they didn't understand the importance of writing with clarity even though they seemed to not think with clarity. Even though my classes were on Computer Literacy not writing, I required several reports during the Semester, and I came down hard while grading their reports. I hope that Lane Williams is successful in his attempts to get his students to think clearly and to clearly express their thoughts.

  • sharrona layton, Ut
    Jan. 10, 2011 9:00 a.m.

    The KJV is a good translation but modern translations are helpful.
    Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be *filled .(Mt 5:6)

    And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be* filled. [with the Holy Ghost]?(3Nephi 12:6)

    Blessed are they who hunger and thirsts for righteousness for they will be "satisfied.(Mt 5:6 NIV)
    *Filled or, satisfied (chortazo, 5526),to fill or be satisfied with food not the Holy Ghost. JS misunderstood the text.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    Jan. 10, 2011 8:58 a.m.

    The observation of Mrs. Adams formal education is very similar to the things we hear of Joseph Smith, but in his case it was a fourth grade education. While this correctly observes their formal training, the reality is that people used to read more. Reading is still one of the best sources of education, particular in the fields of history and philosophy/religion. It seems that former societies counterbalanced their lack institutional education with personal study through reading, whereas today we have greater formal education with little independent study. In other words, saying that some historical figure had a specific grade of education is quite misleading as a means of demonstrating intellectual aptitudes.

    As for Bible study in schools, I would be in favor of allowing it in the context of literary, or social studies. The problem is that traditionally the Bible usage in schools was intended to serve a dual purpose. On one hand it was used as a primer to assist in reading, but on the other it was intended to specifically reinforce Christian ideals and theology at the institutional level. The latter has no place in a public school system - Schools are not churches.

  • Pentacone Batley, W.Yorkshire
    Jan. 10, 2011 8:44 a.m.

    Please do not forget the GREAT Work that our Prophet Joseph Smith Jnr. did way back in 1830!

    AND, the Superb Work that our Current President did, a few years ago, with regards to the JS.Translation!!