Modernizing Bom Language

[Grant Hardy]

Just for the record, a translation into modern English would have to be done carefully, with full regard for the language of the KJV. For example, the word "goodly" in 1 Ne. 1:1 does not mean "good" in a moral sense. In the 16th century (and in the KJV), the word generally meant "good-looking or handsome." Even in Joseph Smith's day, Webster's 1828 dictionary gave the following definitions: "Being of a handsome form; beautiful; graceful; as a goodly person; goodly raiment; goodly houses.1. Pleasant; agreeable; desirable; as goodly days.2. Bulky; swelling; affectedly turgid." The OED also finds early usages that meaning "of good quality, admirable, splendid, excellent," though these are generally non-bilblical usages.

So do you go with "I was born of attractive parents"? or "fine parents" (with a connotation of physical beauty)? or "admirable parents"?

The only other occurrence of "goodly" in the Book of Mormon is Mosiah 18:7, which refers to "a goodly number gathered together." This draws on another standard meaning of "goodly" as "large." I'm charmed by the idea that Nephi was born to large parents, but I'm not sure that was his original meaning.

My point is that a responsible modernization of LDS scripture would have to be a careful retranslation of 15th or 16th c. English into 21st c. English, and it would take at least as much scholarly effort as a translation into any other modern language.

[Calm]

Any inclination on your part to try?

[Saints Alive]

Grant:

This is a great point and another reason why the BOM may need to be modernized. How many people are familiar with that definition of goodly? I certainly wasn't and wouldn't give it a second thought when I read it. On the other hand I am not sure that one instance of the word Goodly has any doctrinal effect no matter how you read it.

[Calm]

Surely a footnote would be sufficient for most cases?

[Saints Alive]

how many people read footnotes?

[ERayR]

I'll take the original. Says it much more poetically and with fewer words.

I very much agree. If you want it "modernized" do it yourself as you read it. I have done that a little. It provides an opportunity to ponder in depth.

[Lightbearer]

I think just taking out the Thee, Thy, Thine, doth, etc. would be a major improvement. but then again I am also against the whole formal language prayers thing.

You could change those word with zero change to the meaning of the text. I'm not even sure if there are any words that need modernizing that could change the meaning of the text.

In other words you are annoyed by the "sacred language" of the text and prefer a more "profane" version? Sorry but I can understand the "thee thou and thine" without a scholar "retranslating" it for me. I mean did Joseph Smith "talk like that"? I do not think even 200 years changes the language so much to make reading holy scripture unintelligible. What I would like to know is why the desire to do so? One point I will concede, if the Lord deems it necessary then He will command His prophet, seer, and revelator to "re-translate" or re-phrase the scriptures. It is not for an "man" to add to or take away from the words God has caused to be revealed. If there is a legitimate need then God in His wisdom will bring about a change, until then I suppose it would be wise to let the standard works be the standard works and if we have a hard time understanding I think the church does produce a "graphic novel" version of all the scriptures for those who hate the "hard words" but the rank and file of the church need no such decontructing of the word of God.

[volgadon]

how many people read footnotes?

Probably about as many people who bother to read the details of their bills. You can take a horse to water but you can't force him to drink.

[Deborah]

how many people read footnotes?

I do, particularly on a difficult passage. And I will read the references as well as go to my Institute manuals.

[mnn727]

In other words you are annoyed by the "sacred language" of the text and prefer a more "profane" version? Sorry but I can understand the "thee thou and thine"

Actually "thee and thou" were the profane language of its day, it was the language of the common folk. Royality didn't use it, nor was royality referred to with it.

[Saints Alive]

Actually "thee and thou" were the profane language of its day, it was the language of the common folk. Royality didn't use it, nor was royality referred to with it.

Thats what I was about to point out. those archaic pronouns are not sacred because they come from God, they were the common language at the time and it is only sacred now because we have made it such.

That being said, is there any reason members (or the Prophet) couldn't pray for inspiration on how to modernize the BOM? God didn't reveal himself to Joseph Smith because he thought it was time to reveal himself he did it because Joseph Smith prayed and asked a question.

[mnn727]

Thats what I was about to point out. those archaic pronouns are not sacred because they come from God, they were the common language at the time and it is only sacred now because we have made it such.

That being said, is there any reason members (or the Prophet) couldn't pray for inspiration on how to modernize the BOM? God didn't reveal himself to Joseph Smith because he thought it was time to reveal himself he did it because Joseph Smith prayed and asked a question.

Exactly, It appears (also from OD 1 and OD 2) that much prayer needs to happen before God changes something..

I kinda doubt that that has been done on this.

Edited October 26, 2011 by mnn727

[Calm]

how many people read footnotes?

Seriously?

So you are of the opinion that the proper way to learn is to sit back and get spoon fed, making everyone else do your work for them.

And thus we have a nation of 'grade eighters'.

The Church must feel differently about it considering how much work and resources it put into the 1980's edition.

[Calm]

I do, particularly on a difficult passage. And I will read the references as well as go to my Institute manuals.

Reading the scriptures online makes this very easy, I tend to do some googling as well, especially with the Bible to get other POVs. Edited October 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

That being said, is there any reason members (or the Prophet) couldn't pray for inspiration on how to modernize the BOM? God didn't reveal himself to Joseph Smith because he thought it was time to reveal himself he did it because Joseph Smith prayed and asked a question.

So have you prayed for this or are you leaving that up to other people as well?

[Cobalt-70]

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.

What do you mean "reverenced"? how is the language of Shakespeare more "reverent" than our own language? It is just as easy to blaspheme and swear in Elizabethan as it is in our own English. I'm guessing you only think it is more reverent because about the only time you hear Elizabethan is in church, and you have formed an association. It's like how we might have fond memories of our father's aftershave, and associate it with fatherliness.

[mnn727]

Keeping it in Elizabethan English has a certain snob appeal in that it keeps certain classes of people out of the Church.

I guess that must be more important to some people than spreading the Gospel to all.

[Cobalt-70]

I think just taking out the Thee, Thy, Thine, doth, etc. would be a major improvement. but then again I am also against the whole formal language prayers thing.

You could change those word with zero change to the meaning of the text. I'm not even sure if there are any words that need modernizing that could change the meaning of the text.

I would also take out some of the "And it came to pass"es, the "behold"s, and the "verily"s.

[volgadon]

Keeping it in Elizabethan English has a certain snob appeal in that it keeps certain classes of people out of the Church.

I guess that must be more important to some people than spreading the Gospel to all.

Whatever.

[Cobalt-70]

Thats what I was about to point out. those archaic pronouns are not sacred because they come from God, they were the common language at the time and it is only sacred now because we have made it such.

That being said, is there any reason members (or the Prophet) couldn't pray for inspiration on how to modernize the BOM? God didn't reveal himself to Joseph Smith because he thought it was time to reveal himself he did it because Joseph Smith prayed and asked a question.

If the year 1978 in LDS history has proven anything, it is that if you bug God long enough and persistently enough, he will give you a revelation telling you to do what you should have done on your own in the first place decades ago.

[Calm]

If the year 1978 in LDS history has proven anything, it is that if you bug God long enough and persistently enough, he will give you a revelation telling you to do what you should have done on your own in the first place decades ago.

Because doing what you think should be done on your own to change things in the Lord's Church has worked out so well in the past.

[Deborah]

Keeping it in Elizabethan English has a certain snob appeal in that it keeps certain classes of people out of the Church.

I guess that must be more important to some people than spreading the Gospel to all.

Oh, grow up. Interesting how the mostly uneducated people of the old west could read and understand the Bible in it's KJ language but somehow we more educated modern folks have a hard time.

[mnn727]

Interesting how the mostly uneducated people of the old west could read and understand the Bible in it's KJ language but somehow we more educated modern folks have a hard time.

Which shows how much you know about education in the 1800's

Formal schooling was scarce, education was not.

They were also 200 years closer to the 1611 KJV and the KJV was the main version known by English speaking Americans at the time. Language has changed, funny how most Mormons are stuck on tradition yet they claim not to be.

Edited October 27, 2011 by mnn727

[volgadon]

Which shows how much you know about education in the 1800's

Formal schooling was scarce, education was not.

And you can keep your insults.

Such as calling people snobs?

[mnn727]

Whatever.

You think I am wrong? What groups in this country have a hard time reading?