BYU Celebrates King Jame Bible Anniversary

[_moksha]

Oct. 6, 2011, Provo, Utah – BYUtv today announced that it will present and air the first U.S. television film series on the making of the King James Bible, coinciding with the 400th anniversary of its translation. Celebrated for its enduring and widespread use, the King James Bible has had immeasurable impact on religion, language, culture, art and literature. Yet the road to its influence and acceptance was paved with the horrors of humanity.

Produced and directed by filmmaker Lee Groberg, and written by screenwriter Mitch Davis, the three-part documentary and dramatic feature tells the vivid stories of international politics, intrigue, subversion, bloodshed, fire, and the runaway libido of King Henry VIII that led to its creation.

Wonder if as an additional tribute, if the LDS artist who painted Jesus with the American Constitution could also paint Jesus holding the King James Bible.


http://www.ldsmag.com/entertainment/film/article/8751?ac=1

[_annie]

Long time lurker here. I just registered for the express purpose of responding to the above quote.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Tudor history is aware that there was a succession crisis - "the runaway libido of King Henry VIII" was not the cause of his marriages: he was the King and consequently entitled/expected to take mistresses, he did not need to marry in order to satisfy his libido. It is ludicrous to blame his 6 marriages on a "runaway libido" - he needed a legitimate, male heir. He lived in a time when magical thinking prevailed; Catherine had 6 pregnancies: a daughter and a son were stillborn, and two sons and a daughter died in infancy, only Mary survived. Henry began to worry that God was displeased with his marriage. Of course, he was enamored by Anne Boleyn, but divorce and remarriage would never have been a consideration if he had a legitimate heir.

I grew up with my parents telling me that Henry had "made up" the church of England in order to marry Anne Boleyn. Imagine my surprise when I studied Tudor history.

[_Some Schmo]

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Tudor history is aware that there was a succession crisis - "the runaway libido of King Henry VIII" was not the cause of his marriages: he was the King and consequently entitled/expected to take mistresses, he did not need to marry in order to satisfy his libido. It is ludicrous to blame his 6 marriages on a "runaway libido" - he needed a legitimate, male heir. He lived in a time when magical thinking prevailed; Catherine had 6 pregnancies: a daughter and a son were stillborn, and two sons and a daughter died in infancy, only Mary survived. Henry began to worry that God was displeased with his marriage. Of course, he was enamored by Anne Boleyn, but divorce and remarriage would never have been a consideration if he had a legitimate heir.

I grew up with my parents telling me that Henry had "made up" the church of England in order to marry Anne Boleyn. Imagine my surprise when I studied Tudor history.

Interesting. Makes perfect sense.

Too bad we can't say something similar about Joe's runaway libido.

[_Phillip]

I grew up with my parents telling me that Henry had "made up" the church of England in order to marry Anne Boleyn. Imagine my surprise when I studied Tudor history.

So he made up a church to ensure that he had a legitimate male heir who could be the next king of England?

[_annie]

I grew up with my parents telling me that Henry had "made up" the church of England in order to marry Anne Boleyn. Imagine my surprise when I studied Tudor history.

So he made up a church to ensure that he had a legitimate male heir who could be the next king of England?

Hi, it's been a while since I studied this, but here's my response:

No. He didn't 'make up' a church.

If you read a little about the English Reformation, you will realize that it was a much more complicated than that. It can be argued that the lack of an heir was a significant factor in what happened, however if one looks at the historical context, it's clear that people were already moving away from religious orthodoxy and questioning religious 'truth' claims. Martin Luther's 95 Theses had spread around Europe by 1518, seven years before Henry started the process of trying to have his marriage to Catherine annulled, and Anne's friends and supporters are known to have been influenced by Protestant Reformers.

Henry married Anne in 1532. He was excommunicated and diplomatic relations between Rome and England were broken off in 1534. Henry then became head of the church in England. I see the introduction of an English Bible in 1538 as a significant moment in the reformation, not an event that occurred because of Henry's runaway libido. In fact, there is very little evidence that Henry was libidinous (Charles II fits this description MUCH better than Henry).

Anyway, it's a complex issue involving politics, religious reformation, love and the desire to have a legitimate, male heir. Interestingly, Henry never renounced the doctrines of the Catholic Church and he was always considered to be a conservative, as opposed to a reformer. And, of course, the reformation was a process, not an event, which means that the continuation of the protestant reformation in mainland Europe and the excommunication of Elizabeth I etc. also influenced the shape of the church in England.

'Henry made up the church of England' is something I have only ever heard in LDS Sunday school classes (maybe they say it in Catholic Sunday school classes too - I don't know as I've never been to one).

[_Phillip]

Hi, it's been a while since I studied this, but here's my response:

No. He didn't 'make up' a church.

If you read a little about the English Reformation, you will realize that it was a much more complicated than that. It can be argued that the lack of an heir was a significant factor in what happened, however if one looks at the historical context, it's clear that people were already moving away from religious orthodoxy and questioning religious 'truth' claims. Martin Luther's 95 Theses had spread around Europe by 1518, seven years before Henry started the process of trying to have his marriage to Catherine annulled, and Anne's friends and supporters are known to have been influenced by Protestant Reformers.

Henry married Anne in 1532. He was excommunicated and diplomatic relations between Rome and England were broken off in 1534. Henry then became head of the church in England. I see the introduction of an English Bible in 1538 as a significant moment in the reformation, not an event that occurred because of Henry's runaway libido. In fact, there is very little evidence that Henry was libidinous (Charles II fits this description MUCH better than Henry).

Anyway, it's a complex issue involving politics, religious reformation, love and the desire to have a legitimate, male heir. Interestingly, Henry never renounced the doctrines of the Catholic Church and he was always considered to be a conservative, as opposed to a reformer. And, of course, the reformation was a process, not an event, which means that the continuation of the protestant reformation in mainland Europe and the excommunication of Elizabeth I etc. also influenced the shape of the church in England.

'Henry made up the church of England' is something I have only ever heard in LDS Sunday school classes (maybe they say it in Catholic Sunday school classes too - I don't know as I've never been to one).

Thanks for your response. I don't know much about this particular period of English history, beyond what I can gleam from an occasional episode of The Tudors. Have you by chance read The Stripping of the Altars by Eamon Duffy and if so what's your opinion on it? I am thinking about reading it even though his thesis is somewhat controversial.

[_annie]

Hi Philip,
No, I'm not familiar with The Stripping of the Altars. I just had a quick google and I agree that the thesis is controversial - if such a thesis were to be widely adopted it would significantly change the way history is taught in English schools (I'm English). When I was in high school we studied the Tudors, the Reformation and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, all of which were presented in ways that would oppose Duffy's thesis. It sounds like an interesting book.