Modernizing Bom Language

[Lightbearer]

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?

Why modernize it? The language of the Book of Mormon is easy enough for a child to understand it (excepting for the possiblity of the Isaiah chapters) I mean what good would it do? I love the sacred language of the scriptures, and of course I also love the KJV of the Bible as well. Who would take on such a task? Should the prophet break out the Urim and thumin? Actually we can all individually "translate" it to our own lingo if need be, we are told to "liken the scriptures unto us" and with the spirit our understanding can expand beyond the language itself. So again I am at a loss for seeing the necessity for tampering with the text, unless it is just someone wanting to pervert the doctrines of the church to their own private interpretation.

[TAO]

It is when it discourages people from reading it.

No, my friend, that isn't snob appeal, that's called overcoming a challenge. Just because it's challenging doesn't mean you should not read it.

There are those who have conditions where they seriously can't read the text, or do so at such a slow rate that it'd take them years to do so. For them, there is alternatives. But to us, who have a higher potential in that aspect then they do, to us, we have a higher responsibility. I'm not saying never read out of the things they do, but you should learn to read the Book of Mormon in it's archaic speech format - because it's good for us.

I guess my point is, the archaic text is important. Part of what makes the Book of Mormon, 'The Book of Mormon' and not something else is the way the words ring. Consider these verses:

Ether 12:4,12

4 Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with ^asurety ^bhope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which ^chope cometh of ^dfaith, maketh an ^eanchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in ^fgood works, being led to ^gglorify God.

12 For if there be no ^afaith among the children of men God can do no ^bmiracle among them; wherefore, he showed not himself until after their faith.

This comes from Ether chapter 12, which is, in my opinion, the most powerful chapter in the Book of Mormon. It isn't only the what it talks about it that makes it powerful. It isn't only the words, or the things talked about, although those are powerful too.

It is the way it is said, that makes it so powerful. It is poetic, concise, succinct, and spiritual. If you change the wording even a bit, it loses the power that was given in it to change the hearts of men.

What is ironic, is, in Chapter 12, Moroni is praying because he doesn't think his words will be powerful enough to change the hearts of men. But it is in this chapter, the chapter where he so prays, that the most powerful testimony of the Book of Mormon for me comes from. It is this chapter, wholely, and completely, that perfects my testimony.

And Ether 12 says:

23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will ^amock at these things, because of our ^bweakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us ^cmighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;

24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the ^aawkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in ^bwriting like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he ^cwrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we ^acannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our ^bweakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall ^cmock at our words.

26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: ^aFools ^bmock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their ^aweakness. I ^bgive unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my ^cgrace is sufficient for all men that ^dhumble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make ^eweak things become strong unto them.

Moroni is worried about this thing; about the 'placing of our words'. He is worried that those words will not have the effect upon the Gentiles and the posterity of the Lamanites that he has an infinite hope they will. And so he tells the Lord, that he doesn't think they are going to succeed. What does the Lord say back? He says simply, that the meek will trust in those words, and will not care about the weaknesses in his writing, but shall be convince by the power of the Holy Ghost, and God.

And the chapter itself, is a perfect example of this. Every word was placed int he right spot. Not a single word wrong, or missing, at least for me. If we remove, or change around the words in the verse, it removes what makes it most powerful; it's phrasing; the emotions transferred by the way the words have been arranged. And the emotions transferred, are, imho, the most important thing for us to have from the Book of Mormon. It is how we know it is true.

So while I understand your opinion... I must say this one thing... keep the Book of Mormon as it is... keep the archaic version as a standard... because in it is the power to unlock kingdoms and the hearts of people... it speaks for itself... and the meek will listen. It may be hard for them to read, but the meek will listen... and will find a way, eventually, to understand the entire thing.

Best of Wishes,

TAO

[ldsfaqs]

Anyone that has a disability that prevents them from reading the BOM is a disability that would prevent them from reading ANYTHING well. The argument is a complete lie.

I've known many LDS with various disabilities, and their reading of the scriptures goes right along with their developing the reading and speaking ability itself. Sorry, but the disabled are not at all "overly" effected by Traditional English in the BOM or otherwise. In fact, I've witness several story's of those who went to the lord enduring in reading and speaking the scriptures and the skill itself period, and God blessed and healed them through their Faith.

Straw-man alert.

[ldsfaqs]

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

Again, there is no such statistic.... It doesn't exist other than in your own mind. As I said above, anyone that has trouble reading and understanding the BOM would have the same trouble reading anything. Thus, you aren't telling the truth. Some of us have actually lived awhile buddy and have known many disabled, and BOM language has nothing to do with their issues.

[Calm]

Anyone that has a disability that prevents them from reading the BOM is a disability that would prevent them from reading ANYTHING well. The argument is a complete lie.

I've known many LDS with various disabilities, and their reading of the scriptures goes right along with their developing the reading and speaking ability itself. Sorry, but the disabled are not at all "overly" effected by Traditional English in the BOM or otherwise. In fact, I've witness several story's of those who went to the lord enduring in reading and speaking the scriptures and the skill itself period, and God blessed and healed them through their Faith.

Straw-man alert.

Right. Why the heck is the Church even bothering to print the scriptures in braille or any other language besides English; if they can't understand it the way it is they are either not trying hard enough or too dumb to benefit anyway.

And while we're at it, why bother with publishing the Bible in anything but Latin? After all anyone who cares enough to really educate themselves knows Latin and it's the way it has always been done....it can only benefit those who work at it...we don't need to worry about those who fail because they aren't serious about learning, President Monson was just indulging that man's laziness to work with him at his current reading level rather than encouraging him to improve his reading first....no need to worry about the weakest of Saints here.

[Calm]

And all those commentaries that people keep writing to help others understand the scriptures, what a waste of money! They are just trying to make the scriptures look more complicated then they are and do people's work for them. No wonder the Church doesn't allow Deseretbook to carry them.

http://deseretbook.com/LDS-Books/Scripture-Reference/g/13#q=&page=1&sort=popularity&facets=group:13%7Ccategory:1

[Calm]

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

I would be surprised if it was millions. If it was that high I think the Church would step in with their own version rather than allowing the private sector to cover this need. I'm guessing that they leave it to the private sector to encourage those on the 'border' to push themselves to read the official version, but I would not be surprised with the many aids out there that the Church has been working on to help make other areas of the church and gospel more accessible to all the Saints that as the need grows with the population growth, that eventually we will get a simplified version....perhaps tp satisfy the naysayers it will still be written in 16th century English, just simpler for the peasants. Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

http://lds.org/ensign/1990/04/the-hidden-handicap?lang=eng

Press. Monson's story: http://lds.org/ensign/1989/06/finishers-wanted?lang=eng

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[ldsfaqs]

Cal as usual butting in and pre-judging without actually understanding what was going on in the conversation.

The original premise wasn't about "brail" or any other NORMAL disability, it was about a guy being lazy, and then later moving the goal post trying to claim there are millions who can't read scripture, but can read everything else, that we need to remove the "archaic" english because so many have such terrible disabilities.

Edited October 23, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Stargazer]

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.

There isn't a Samoan or Tongan language version?

[Robert F. Smith]

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....

Actually the 1830 edition is not the earliest. If you want to read a truly early, beautiful, and scholarly Book of Mormon based on the Original and Printer's manuscripts, you should obtain Royal Skousen, ed., The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (Yale Univ. Press, 2009). The introduction, preface, and appendix are also worth reading for the light they throw on the true nature of the early Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

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 need say no more.....

[Deborah]

it was about a guy being lazy, and then later moving the goal post trying to claim there are millions who can't read scripture, but can read everything else, that we need to remove the "archaic" english because so many have such terrible disabilities.

Wow. You really don't understand what a reading or learning disability is. It has nothing to do with being lazy or not trying hard enough or being un-intelligent. My daughter has a reading disability and sees words differently than others. She has learned to substitute the correct words. I happen to love the KJ language but I understand someone having difficulty with it, especially those without a strong background in English.

I don't think it is right to judge others because they have a different way of understanding. Some people can pick up a text explaining how to do something and have it down. Not me. I am strictly hands on and the explanation means absolutely nothing until I can actually do it. There are many ways of learning and I applaud those who can make it easier for someone else to understand. Now I have taught younger Primary children and nursery for years. There is nothing more challenging than getting a gospel principle boiled down to what a young child can understand and teachers often have to come up with creative ways to do so. Even when reading from the scriptures I have to read it so the child understands.

[Peppermint Patty]

Again, there is no such statistic.... It doesn't exist other than in your own mind. As I said above, anyone that has trouble reading and understanding the BOM would have the same trouble reading anything. Thus, you aren't telling the truth. Some of us have actually lived awhile buddy and have known many disabled, and BOM language has nothing to do with their issues.

I'm not sure why you would state that I'm "not telling the truth". Please CFR.

As I previously stated, approximately 15-20% of the people in the U.S. have a language based learning disability. If you do the simple math, that means that approximately 45-60 million people in the U.S. alone, have a language based learning disability. If these numbers are projected worldwide, then approximately 600 million people in the world would have some sort of language based learning disability.

These numbers do not take into account literacy rates, etc. which would increase these numbers substantially. Of these millions and millions (did I mention millions?) of people with language based learning disabilities, comprehending the BOM as written can be a real challenge that many simply would not be able to overcome.

From the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/learning_disabilities.cfm

About 15 percent to 20 percent of people in the United States have a language-based disability, and of those, most have dyslexia.

Again, please CFR on how I am lying.

[mnn727]

Its the old "Haves" verses the "Have Nots" argument.

the arguments go like this:

"Well I can do it so everyone should be able to."

"I've got mine, too bad if you don't have your's - thats your problem, not mine"

"They must just be lazy if they can't do what I can do"

---

Funny, I thought the premise was to bring more people to the Gospel, not freeze people out.

If having the BoM and the Bible available in a modern language (and I don't mean a childrens version) brings even one more person into the Gospel, imagine how much your joy in Heaven would be.

Edited October 23, 2011 by mnn727

[Calm]

As I previously stated, approximately 15-20% of the people in the U.S. have a language based learning disability. If you do the simple math, that means that approximately 45-60 million people in the U.S. alone, have a language based learning disability. If these numbers are projected worldwide, then approximately 600 million people in the world would have some sort of language based disability.

Ah, I had only been focusing on members...definitely if you are talking about taking the BoM to the world, among those who would choose to read it in English, there would be millions unable to make full use of the currentbEnglish text.

[mnn727]

Ah, I had only been focusing on members...definitely if you are talking about taking the BoM to the world, among those who would choose to read it in English, there would be millions unable to make full use of the currentbEnglish text.

If you use the 15% to 20 % number, then of the approximatly 6 million U.S. Mormons - 900,000 to 1,200,000 current Mormons have a language based learning disability, thats not a significant number in itself?

And as Pepperment Patty said, when you start talking about potentioal converts the numbers become staggering.

Why do so many of you want to prevent people from reading the Gospel in a way they can actually understand it?

Edited October 23, 2011 by mnn727

[Calm]

If you use the 15% to 20 % number, then of the approximatly 6 million U.S. Mormons - 900,000 to 1,200,000 current Mormons have a language based learning disability, thats not a significant number in itself?

But not everyone with a learning disability needs the same type of aid. For many using the scriptures on tape as they read or alone would be enough. For those who need simplified forms there are several options out there already, including those with pictures for those with major problems.

I am not sure of how to estimate the specific number of individuals that could manage a modernized format (not also a simplified), but would find the current form sufficiently difficult to prevent any real comprehension even with the help of audio scriptures.

It is definitely not about preventing people from reading scriptures in my view but maximizing the number of people reading the scriptures in the most productive way for them and that doesn't always mean the way they'd be most comfortable with, IMO.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

On tape, in Braille, don't know as anyone has translated it into American Sign language.

Wonderful things called dictionaries have been around for a long time now.

No I'm NOT bellttling people with learning disabilities. I have a small one myself. Lower case "b" and lower case "d" look exactly the same to me out of context of a word/phrase I already know.

[Skylla]

Cal as usual butting in and pre-judging without actually understanding what was going on in the conversation.

The original premise wasn't about "brail" or any other NORMAL disability, it was about a guy being lazy, and then later moving the goal post trying to claim there are millions who can't read scripture, but can read everything else, that we need to remove the "archaic" english because so many have such terrible disabilities.

If I see another personal insult like this from you, you will be taking a break from the board.

Skylla

[Calm]

On tape, in Braille, don't know as anyone has translated it into American Sign language.

Wonderful things called dictionaries have been around for a long time now.

No I'm NOT bellttling people with learning disabilities. I have a small one myself. Lower case "b" and lower case "d" look exactly the same to me out of context of a word/phrase I already know.

Looks like they do have an ASL DVD available among other aids:

http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category3_715839595_10557_21236_-1_Y_image_0

They have the English text available at half speed for slower readers as well.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

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

There is also the reversed snob-appeal, the populist appraoch, where if it isn't dumbed-down then it isn't keeping it real.

For the record, I'd be perfectly fine with an easier language version for those who need it.

Edited October 23, 2011 by volgadon

[Calm]

Volgadon, as someone who has experience in multiple languages, do you know if nonEnglish versions of the BoM are in modern form or are they somewhat stylized to echo the English version?

[mnn727]

There is also the reversed snob-appeal, the populist appraoch, where if it isn't dumbed-down then it isn't keeping it real.

For the record, I'd be perfectly fine with an easier language version for those who need it.

Nobody is taking about dumbing it down, we're talking about making in the language people actually speak.

[Saints Alive]

I just cant understand why people get so heated about this subject. We aren't talking about replacing the standard works or even retranslating them. To say that the BOM or anything else cant be modernized or translated without loosing something is to say that it cant be understood by anyone who isn't a native speaker (King James English in this case). If done with care and the guidance of the spirit, i dont see how anything would be lost that isn't already lost by each individuals translation in their mind.