I don't believe that this is a translation issue at all (it's a theological issue, which may be influenced by whichever translation you use, but if you build your theology based on whichever particular translation you use, you're likely to run into trouble; see the first example directly below), but still a few things should probably be said to Mormons who think that it is.
I assume you are referring to Exodus 32:14 concerning God repenting, as that is what the KJV renders it as. The
NKJV, however, translates it as "relent".
Remind us all again which translation is the preferred one in the Mormon religion...
Interestingly, when I went to look up Genesis 6:6 (another verse that many people point to about God repenting) in the KJV, I found not "God repented", but rather "And it repented the Lord that..." That's not a common phrasing (anymore), but I'm willing to bet at any rate that it did not mean the exact same as "the Lord repented", since "the Lord repented" is found elsewhere (as in Exodus 32:14, already mentioned). The NKJV, NIV, NASB, and other western Bible translations render it as "regretted", or "was sorry", and both Exodus 32:14 and Genesis 6:6 use the same Hebrew verb (
wayinnahem), so it seems that the semantic range of the verb, if we take all of these translations for both verses together (KJV too), is a bit wider than just "repent" vs. "relent", but can also include regret, sorrow, etc.
So my question now (as someone who doesn't know Hebrew and prefers translations that use the LXX as the base text whenever possible anyway; there it is ἱλάσθη in Exodus and ἐνεθυμήθη in Greek -- the former has several definitions, but "propitiate" is
apparently primary, while the latter apparently
means "ponder; think deeply of") is how does any Mormon who believes in this "translated correctly" principle know themselves that what they are using and basing their doctrine on is actually the most accurate of all possible translations?
Are you going to tell me that you all learn Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, Koine Greek, and possibly other languages (Latin? Syriac? Coptic? Classical Armenian?) so as to properly evaluate the variety of existing translations of importance, and then make your decision based on such studious and informed perspectives?
Or do you just repeat this principle like a mantra without really thinking through its implications, only to go with absolutely anything your leaders tell you whether or not
they actually know anything either?
Again, JS was such a great translator and scholar of ancient languages and Bible translations, and I'm sure Russel M. Nelson is, too. I mean, he would have to be to have worked as an assistant secretary at a bank before beginning his medical training, and then to become a medical doctor. A man named Dr. Mahfouz was a member of my parish back in NM, and he once told me that they wouldn't let him even begin his residency as an aspiring doctor until he could give the higher ups at his university a full account of the contents of both the Bodmer and Chester Beatty papyri!