The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only distributes the King James Version of the Holy Bible because it is the only version of the Holy Bible that the LDS Church accepts as the Word of God.  
 
The LDS Church does not prohibit it's members to utilizing other versions or translations for personal study but they do not recognize them for use in lessons or talk (sermons).  
 
The reasoning behind this is that the KJV is the oldest translation of the Bible that is available from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. 
 
All other versions are just interpretations or additional translations of the KJV or utilize surviving copies or translations of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Since the KJV has the least of possible human error we accept it as the most accurate translation available to man.  
 
Unlike other faiths, LDS do not believe that scholars translating the Bible are incapable of error, we believe that translation is going to create grammatical error as well and errors to translation capacity as well as misinterpretation of passages do to the fallibility of man.  
 
So the KJV is the closest mankind can get to the original and is the reason why the LDS Church only accepts the KJV as authoritative for the New and Old Testaments.

I found some of your statements to be in error. 1. The "original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts" are not in existance! 2. The newer translations are based on older manuscripts that the King James people did not have available. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If you know where the manuscripts written by the hands of Mose and the other OT prophets or the epistles written by the Apostles and where they are stored or displayed please enlighten me.  
 
The OT was lost 2 to mankind long before the time of Christ due to wickedness, all we have let of the OT is the fragments that survived and are complied we are missing books from the OT and do not have the records that were carried in the Arc anymore, because Israel's linage because too wicked to have that blessing.  
 
As far at the epistles and books of the NT it is the same thing we have 4 testimonies of the Lords life yet it was intimately witnessed by the 12 Apostles as well as dozens of other persons like Mary his mother, Mary Magdaline, etc. All we have is 4 testimonies (2 of which are hearsay) and the Epistles of Paul with a speck of Peter, James, and John at the end.  
 
Also as I said unless my understanding is completely wrong on the matter none of the originals surveyed in many cases they were kept as oral traditions for almost 3 centuries after there writings because there was too much danger in keeping them in the Roman world.  
 
What we have let is the records written AFTER the Constantine reign and the political decisions of what would be the Holy Bible.  
 
The only manuscripts I know of that are older then the KJV manuscripts are the Dead Sea Scrolls which pertain to the Old Testament only.  
 
If I am incorrect then please feel free to show my errors, I am not a scripture scholar just a disciple of the lord.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your attitude. Your historical facts are basically correct. Yes, the earliest manuscripts do not exist or have not been found. Please, read an article I wrote after many, many years of research. Click on www.marcionite-scripture.info/holybook.html 
Your response, again, would be appreciated.

I personally and I feel the LDS church doctrinally agrees with you we do not presume to tell anyone what they should believe our 11th Article of Faith states "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." 
 
We as a Church officially use only one version of the scriptures the KJV for cohesion and uniformity. We believe that of all the versions the KJV is the most accurate and is the word of God. As I said though other translations of versions are not prohibited for personal or family study, and differences though we defer to the KJV as authoritative.  
 
We know that the Holy Bible was complied by political committees, and while it is far from perfect something is better than nothing. I will take incomplete records over no records, and with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the teachings and council of the Living Prophet and the Apostles, we have the ability to receive the will of the Lord through is chosen Prophet to guide us in these days. Just as he sent them to guide his children in the Old and New Testaments.

Thank you again for your response! It is nice to see that we have agreement. AFTER I wrote my article, the undisputed Bible scholar, Bart Ehrman, head of the religious department at the Univ. of North Carolina, published his best selling book, MISQUOTING JESUS. On page 10 he states, "Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places." My research and Mr. Ehrman's, being honest with ourselves, has led both of us to come to agree with many of our forefathers such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, etc. etc. that we are "deists". Perhaps, you will too someday. Again, it would be nice to have your response.

One of our Articles of Faith states: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." 
 
So we obviously believe the Bible to be one of our canon of scripture. 
 
Here is the full list of the 13 Articles of Faith: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng

I agree that might of been a Jefferson was a Deist, maybe Franklin and possibly Paine, but George Washington was not Deist no matter how much it is argued. You are of not hold administrative positions in several congregations in your life you are against organized religion.  
 
He was Anglican and latter converted to the Episcopalian faith.  
 
Realistically I see Deism, agnostics, and such is not in my cards. Simply because I know that men are imperfect does not mean that they are incapable of joining together in the worship of Lord.  
 
Also as I previously stated I fully and completely believe that my faith is the one and only authoritative Body of Christ on the face of the Earth. That we have the fullness of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. That with the continuation of the Cannon to include the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price, that we have multiple sources ancient and modern to be the rock to build upon that cannot be destroyed.  
 
An Seventy of our Church explained it well like this if you have one point on a map you can make infinite line through it, the same goes for the Bible you can make infinite interpretations through it. When you have to points on a map though you can only have on line, with the Bible and Book of Mormon we have the fullness of the Gospel to guide us.  
 
Is it perfect, is it complete from Adam to today? far from it but that is why we are still progressing and learning line upon line until we reach a perfect knowledge in the Spirit World and the eternities. 
 
The Bible is errant but that does not mean that it is as useless as you seem to make it out to be. Yes it was kept be oral tradition for many, many decades (OT was an oral tradition for thousands of years) so it is imperfect and complied for political purposes by the Carthaginian Conventions.  
 
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water though, it is still the best records we have of the prophets of the old covenant and the new covenant that Christ made with his chosen people Israel through the Abrahamic Covenant.  
 
As a moden disciple and adherent to this ancient and sacred covenant I take joy that while the purpose of the compiling of the Holy Bible was political that through it we have records that would of vanished for all time had they not been preserved.  
 
I will take errant and incomplete scriptures over NO scriptures any day. It is better to walk around in the dark with a match then to refuse it and stumble even more!!

Thank you again! The errors with the Bible is not so much in the translating but in the copying and adding/subtracting and even changing the texts. One of many good examples would be St. John 7;53 - 8:11, the story of the woman taken in adultery. Pick up the New English Bible (there are others) and you will fine it omitted. Many versions such as the (NIV)New International Version include it but state before John 7:53 that this story is not found in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts.

Regarding your comment #8. Do a web-search for "Famous Deists". Whether or not Washington was a Deist is of no great concern? I can accept your contention that he was not.  
 
Many Deists and agnostics do attend church. Perhaps you have some "doubting Thomas' in your church? 
 
Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, produced his own Bible known as "The Jefferson Bible". Every U.S. Senator is given a copy at their swearing in. It contains the teachings of Jesus, scriptures he accepted as valid. He did this because, like you, he believed the Bible to be errant. 
 
Regarding the Old Testament, a majority of early Christians, including Marcion, most likely Paul, did not accept the Old Testament as sacred. 
 
Thomas Paine, a Deist, published his book, "Age Of Reason", that details the problems with the Old Testament. Like you and I he blieved the Bible to be errant. I would hope someday that you would read it, for a good judge like Solomon would hear both sides of an argument before making a decision. It is those that only hear one side, never hearing the other, that find themselves contained in a box.