Modernizing Bom Language

[Saints Alive]

The Church discourages rewriting the Book

of Mormon into familiar or modern English. The

First Presidency has said:

“When a sacred text is translated into another

language or rewritten into more familiar language,

there are substantial risks that this process

may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure

evidence of its ancient origin. To guard against

these risks, the First Presidency and Council of

the Twelve give close personal supervision to the

translation of scriptures from English into other

languages and have not authorized efforts to

express the doctrinal content of the Book of Mor -

mon in familiar or modern English. (These concerns

do not pertain to publications by the Church

for children.)” (Ensign, Apr. 1993, 74).

CHI 2 21.1.8 Book of Mormon

This is the "official" Church Policy about Book of Mormon Language / grammar. This says to me that I am not the only one who has ever thought it might be nice to have a modern translation of the Book of Mormon.

I understand the risk the first presidency is talking about but could it not be possible to remove some thee, thy, and thou without "introducing doctrinal errors," perhaps replace the word "epistle" found in alma, with the only possible translation "letter"

Any thoughts?

[ERayR]

This is the "official" Church Policy about Book of Mormon Language / grammar. This says to me that I am not the only one who has ever thought it might be nice to have a modern translation of the Book of Mormon.

I understand the risk the first presidency is talking about but could it not be possible to remove some thee, thy, and thou without "introducing doctrinal errors," perhaps replace the word "epistle" found in alma, with the only possible translation "letter"

Any thoughts?

I agree with the First Presidency. If you want modern language translate it yourself as you read it. This will help you to give it some deeper thought as you express the message in modern english. Believe it or not I do it all the time. It is a good exercise. Leave the official version as it is.

[David T]

The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) have as one of their officially accepted editions just such an update.

[Saints Alive]

The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) have as one of their officially accepted editions just such an update.

I am familiar with it and also jealous that they have both the Inspired Version of the Bible and the Modern BOM and use nether in their services.

[Grundelwalken]

To "retranslate" anything opens the door for the problems we already encounter with the Bible. Best to leave it in its pure form and work out our own salvation. MW

[Saints Alive]

To "retranslate" anything opens the door for the problems we already encounter with the Bible. Best to leave it in its pure form and work out our own salvation. MW

So what is its "pure" form? We don't use the 1st edition of the Book of Mormon

[Questing Beast]

I read the 1830 edition when I want the most original and correct context. The lack of chapter and verse is also more conducive to reading in a continuous run. Also, the 1830 edition is more early 19th century colloquial which is kind of entertaining.

There is no original, ancient version of the BofM; only the 1830 edition and the following editions and their changes....

[David T]

I read the 1830 edition when I want the most original and correct context. The lack of chapter and verse is also more conducive to reading in a continuous run. Also, the 1830 edition is more early 19th century colloquial which is kind of entertaining.

There is no original, ancient version of the BofM; only the 1830 edition and the following editions and their changes....

I like Royal Skousen's The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text for that But for reading and getting the best sense of the original narrative, I prefer the re-formatted (yet textually unchanged) The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition, by Grant Hardy (both of which indicate 1830 chapter breaks as well as the modern breaks, both in non-obtrusive ways.)

Edited October 19, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Cobalt-70]

This is the "official" Church Policy about Book of Mormon Language / grammar. This says to me that I am not the only one who has ever thought it might be nice to have a modern translation of the Book of Mormon.

I understand the risk the first presidency is talking about but could it not be possible to remove some thee, thy, and thou without "introducing doctrinal errors," perhaps replace the word "epistle" found in alma, with the only possible translation "letter"

The church will not officially endorse a modern English edition of the Book of Mormon. But that does not mean that a scholar cannot legitimately produce one for personal study by Mormons and others. They just should not expect that it will be used in official church services for the foreseeable future.

However, I personally don't see the point of such editions. Unlike the King James version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon is an original work, not a translation. It is what it is, and any "improvement" over the editions authorized by Smith, including those grammatical and consistency changes made over the years by the LDS Church itself, dilutes the unique voice of Joseph Smith and the writing style of his scribes.

[Calm]

I think reformatting it as Grant Hardy has done can help with much of the awkwardness of reading. If someone is troubled by the language, this is what I would recommend as a first step.

I don't look on the difficulty of the text as always a bad thing, sometimes it is in the struggle that we learn what is most valuable. It is only bad if it causes someone to give up and this shouldn't happen with most people though I can understand why it might be a problem for those with learning disabilities related to reading. I can see why the Church is reluctant to provide a simplified version of the scriptures as if it is there many capable of achieving a decent comfort level with them might excuse themselves from making the effort, but it would still be very nice to have something for those with more limited abilities. There are many things in the Church that have been made at various levels of difficulty, such as the hymns, SS lessons, seminary and institute; they have adapted many things for the handicapped and they have literary programs and very simplified books to help with learning to read the scriptures for children and the illiterate but lack something in the midrange area for those who have reached the level of independent learning, but not full competency yet. I would not be surprised to see them eventually produced such a text which could be in modern text, but would also be simplified which hopefully would have the effect of making it clear that those who can should use the more difficult but likely more ultimately satisfying version.

I am curious as to whether or not translations into nonEnglish versions use complete modern form or whether attempts are made to give them a somewhat archaic feel that matches the English version? If modern, it should be clear that in itself is not considered a problem, but rather the desire to stay as true to the inspired text as possible, thus only altering spelling and grammar.

Unless educational standards change though, I would not be surprised to see the Church forced to eventually produce a modernized text as people become less and less capable of dealing with language variations (how many English students study much of Shakespeare anymore, let alone older classics such as Beowulf to become familiar and comfortable with placing their mind in another time and place?)

I wonder if in general those who learn a second language are more comfortable reading the scriptures than those that are monolingual.

I also see using a different style of language from our everyday experience as contributing to making our scripture reading a sacred experience just as when we make the effort to not only first dress up in our Sunday Best to attend the temple, but even further remove ourselves from the everyday experience by changing into sacred, even ritualized clothing within the temple walls.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm okay with the RLDS Revised Authorized Version of the Book of Mormon. It doesn't seem to take away the message that is produced. I agree with Cobalt, though, that it isn't really necessary considering it is an original work.

As for the KJV it is a poor translation. Often in the past, I would reference the NRSV or ESV in church services because I believe that the messages remain intact more fully than that of the KJV. Bruce Metzger did a great job with both the RSV and NRSV.

[Kevin Barney]

This has been done a couple of times. The one I'm familiar with, which is actually very good, is the Easy-to-Read Book of Mormon by Lynn Matthews Anderson. It is intended for those with low reading skills and learning disabilities.

My attitude on this was shaped by a class I taught at BYU when I was a student there; I think it was EQ. The class must have been on the scriptures, and we were all talking about how important it was to read and study them, and this big Samoan or Tongan (I don't recall exactly) raised his hand to ask a question. We make such a huge issue of reading the Book of Mormon, but the English is too difficult for him to read, so what should he do? I suggested the BoM comic books (graphic novel type books), and he said basically "I'm a grown man, I don't want to read a comic book, I want to read the scriptures!"

So after that experience I no longer have a problem with a paraphrase such as Matthews Anderson did. Technically, this is called an intralingual translation.

[Calm]

I had a missionary come into the church bookstore where I worked who stated the Matthews book pretty much saved him from giving up on his mission due to his reading disability. After having read it he found it much easier to teach from the BoM and even memorize the scriptures.

That is why I would like an official version of much simpler but still adult language for those in his situation as well as English second language individuals who are not yet fluent enough to get the KJV sufficiently to be inspired by it.

[Peppermint Patty]

I had a missionary come into the church bookstore where I worked who stated the Matthews book pretty much saved him from giving up on his mission due to his reading disability. After having read it he found it much easier to teach from the BoM and even memorize the scriptures.

That is why I would like an official version of much simpler but still adult language for those in his situation as well as English second language individuals who are not yet fluent enough to get the KJV sufficiently to be inspired by it.

Excellent. I'm for anything that would allow greater access to the BOM.

[ldsfaqs]

I don't understand the "need" of some people to debase and de-reverence scripture....

If you're not mentally competent enough to understand a language that is more traditional and reverenced, then maybe you have some maturity to develop?

It is not always valuable to lower standards in order to reach the lowest common denominator. When you do that, you loose something. Just look at all the various Evangelical, Protestant, COC/RLDS religions and see how they have become so watered down, changed doctrines, loose spirituality, etc. to get the point. "Change" is not always a good thing.

Edited October 23, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Peppermint Patty]

I don't understand the "need" of some people to debase and de-reverence scripture....

If you're not mentally competent enough to understand a language that is more traditional and reverenced, then maybe you have some maturity to develop?

I don't think it's an issue of whether someone is "mature" enough to understand language that is more "traditional" or "reverenced". There are millions of people out there with serious and significant learning disabilities and/or other issues that prohibit them from fully comprehending the BOM as it is written today.

Nothing wrong with making the BOM more accessible. I think the Savior would as many people to be able to read the BOM as possible. Just my 2 cents.

[ldsfaqs]

I think you are wrong..... Never seen anyone that can't read the BOM and understand it. It's pretty basic english with just a little flare, especially when you've been actually reading it in Church and at home for awhile.

When I was a child I read childrens books, as I grew to a teen and younger I read Novels, many with big words that I wasn't experienced with. But in context, I could understand the words. Then after a few years of reading, my vocabulary and maturity expanded.

You want to dumb down the standards of the Church. Sorry, I'm not with you in that. And it's completely false your claim that millions can't understand it. It doesn't take very long to learn that thee and thou means "you". Heaven forbid you ever have to go on a mission.

[Peppermint Patty]

You want to dumb down the standards of the Church. Sorry, I'm not with you in that. And it's completely false your claim that millions can't understand it. It doesn't take very long to learn that thee and thou means "you". Heaven forbid you ever have to go on a mission.

Please don't put words in my mouth. You know very well that I didn't say anything about dumbing down the standards of the Church. As far as you not understanding why someone wouldn't be able to understand the BOM as written, I would suggest studying a little more about some of the more significant/serious learning disabilities that many people suffer from.

Approximately 15% of the U.S. population suffers from some form of dyslexia. If you do the math, that is around 45 million people in the U.S. alone suffer from dyslexia. Dyslexia is only one of many, many more significant and serious learning disabilities people have which would preclude them from comprehending the BOM as written.

Only good can come from making the BOM more accessible to millions and millions of people. Again, just my 2 cents.

[cinepro]

I like Royal Skousen's The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text for that But for reading and getting the best sense of the original narrative, I prefer the re-formatted (yet textually unchanged) The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition, by Grant Hardy (both of which indicate 1830 chapter breaks as well as the modern breaks, both in non-obtrusive ways.)

Just to be clear, Grant Hardy's book is the 1920 version of the text.

Edited October 23, 2011 by cinepro

[TAO]

Peppermint Patty, although I am not word-dyslexic, I am direction dyslexic and at times, syllable-speech dyslexic. I would think actually, that the more archaic language would actually help with word-dyslexia, because archaic words don't seem correct backwards, whereas modern words sound fine, meaning modern words are sometimes more confusing. I don't know anybody to back this up with... but I am not sure dyslexia would be a good enough justification. We'd have to wait and talk to someone who has a serious amount of it to check.

In any case, I prefer keeping BoM in archaic terms... it keeps the meaning relatively the same.

On the other hand, I know of alternative 'easy to read' sections, that have been used by the church before, not as a replacement, but as a suplimental. Think, 'Children's Stories of the Book of Mormon' and the like. I know President Monson related to a story about him using such a book to help a missionary who only read at fourth grade level serve his mission.

So yeah... I see the point of 'easy reading' ones, but they shouldn't be replacing the archaic speech ones, imho.

Edited October 23, 2011 by TAO

[mnn727]

I think you are wrong..... Never seen anyone that can't read the BOM and understand it. It's pretty basic english with just a little flare, especially when you've been actually reading it in Church and at home for awhile.

You are 1000% wrong, its why 1st Nephi is the most read book in the BoM, because people give up after that.

You want converts? then make it easier to read actual English, rather then 200-400 year old English that no one speaks and few people read anymore.

And its not just people with reading difficulties/disabilities that would profit.

But then some people might like the snob appeal of an archaic language,since it tends to keeps the riff-raff out.

Edited October 23, 2011 by mnn727

[TAO]

You are 1000% wrong, its why 1st Nephi is the most read book in the BoM, because people give up after that.

You want converts? then make it easier to read actual English, rather then 200-400 year old English that no one speaks and few people read anymore.

And its not just people with reading difficulties/disabilities that would profit.

But then some people might like the snob appeal of an archaic language,since it tends to keeps the riff-raff out.

mnm, 'snob appeal' isn't a characteristic of archaic language... or at least it doesn't appear to be any more 'snobbish' than regular language.

Nah, both have their advantages; let us leave it at that.

Edited October 23, 2011 by TAO

[blackstrap]

Someone apparently has not had any experience with a perfectly intelligent person who has a reading disability. Put on a pair of glasses that are not made for you and try reading.There are a lot if different reading disabilities.They have little to do with "maturity" .

There are also"millions" of people whose"larnin" was not up to standard,yet they still would benefit from the scriptures. I wonder how many people in the world are functionally illiterate. Care to guess?

[mnn727]

mnm, 'snob appeal' isn't a characteristic of archaic language... or at least it doesn't appear to be any more 'snobbish' than regular language.

It is when it discourages people from reading it.

[Peppermint Patty]

So yeah... I see the point of 'easy reading' ones, but they shouldn't be replacing the archaic speech ones, imho.

Agreed. My point was that there should be an alternative for the millions of people who cannot comprehend the BOM as currently written.