Modernizing Bom Language

[volgadon]

You think I am wrong?

Absolutely.

What groups in this country have a hard time reading?

No idea, I'm not from here.

[David T]

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

The 1981 official edition already did that to a degree.

[ERayR]

If the /church were to do as you ask and put out a "plain english" translation would you read it more? Would it increase the study of the BOM?

[Calm]

The Church works hard to get people comfortable and relatively fluent in scripture reading. They start familiarizing children in Primary. They are not just handing out quads and tossing people in the deep end.

[LeSellers]

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

The constant (and organized) dumbing down of the USmerican mind in government-controlled, tax-funded schools, as imported and implemented by Horace Mann explains this without the need for any other theory.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

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

At least half of those "educated" in gctf-welfare schools. The functional illiteracy rate in USmerica approaches 50%. The absolute illiteracy rate is probably 20%, after 13 years of school, nearly none of which qualifies as "education" in any but a bureaucrat's glossary.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

how many people read footnotes?

I often get lost in the footnotes. In some books, I'll read footnotes to the point of losing my place in the main body of the text.

I freely admit I'm a bit eccentric in this, but the asides the notes represent are sometimes more interesting or important than the author's primary message.

Lehi

[ERayR]

I often get lost in the footnotes. In some books, I'll read footnotes to the point of losing my place in the main body of the text.

I freely admit I'm a bit eccentric in this, but the asides the notes represent are sometimes more interesting or important than the author's primary message.

Lehi

I thought I was the only one who did that.

[Saints Alive]

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.

No, I am a utilitarian. The footnotes were added to help people understand and reference the text, if they are no longer serving that purpose or are not effective in serving that purpose, something else should be done.

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

This is a rather rude and irrelevant remark.

[Deborah]

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

Formal schooling was scarce, education was not.

Then perhaps as has been pointed out formal schooling is the problem and that should cause alarm. Yes the early pioneers were educated on the scriptures, for many that was their main source of reading material, but that illustrates the point that we truly have dumbed down our ability to comprehend old texts. I think of the Cliff notes versions of some of the great novels. Really sad I think that people don't rise to the challenge of reading the entire text.

[Deborah]

If the /church were to do as you ask and put out a "plain english" translation would you read it more? Would it increase the study of the BOM?

Which is an excellent point. How many would find another excuse.

[David T]

The other day in Sunday School, it was asked who had previously read the Letter to the Romans. Like three people raised their hand. While there is still some difficult context, I personally find the letter (and much of the NT epistles) far clearer on the surface to follow with a 20th century rendering/translation.

It is a fact that sometimes the archaisms do severely get in the way of understanding what the text says, which needs to be understood before one can begin to explore what the text means.

How many LDS do you know who feel comfortable reading any of the OT prophets? Or The Pauline letters? I do feel that it would increase - even to a small (but still important) degree, if they felt comfortable reading in a way that tore down one more wall.

Now, I know that this is not the BoM (the topic of this thread), but I do know individuals who have been strongly discouraged by archaisms and wonky structure and grammar that lead them to feel that the scriptures 'aren't for them'.

As much as some of you may feel that's silly, it's a real concern.1600s English isn't God's Official language. It's not the language of reverence. The language of reverence is the language in which anyone communicates with and seeks after their Father, and by which they can hear his voice.

While there may be good reasons not to offer an updated 'Translation' of the BoM (like is done printed in parellel with Beowulf, Shakespeare, etc), from my experience, one simply isn't "Well, it really won't encourage people read the scriptures more anyway." - because, in my experience, having an alternative would, has, and does help people feel connected, and that God is speaking to them.

Edited October 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[ERayR]

The other day in Sunday School, it was asked who had previously read the Letter to the Romans. Like three people raised their hand. While there is still some difficult context, I personally find the letter (and much of the NT epistles) far clearer on the surface to follow.

It is a fact that sometimes the archaisms do severely get in the way of understanding what the text says, which needs to be understood before one can begin to explore what the text means.

How many LDS do you know who feel comfortable reading any of the OT prophets? Or The Pauline letters? I do feel that it would increase - even to a small (but still important) degree, if they felt comfortable reading in a way that tore down one more wall.

Now, I know that this is not the BoM (the topic of this thread), but I do know individuals who have been strongly discouraged by archaisms and wonky structure and grammar that lead them to feel that the scriptures 'aren't for them'.

As much as some of you may feel that's silly, it's a real concern.1600s English isn't God's Official language. It's not the language of reverence. The language of reverence is the language in which anyone communicates with and seeks after their Father, and by which they can hear his voice.

While there may be good reasons not to offer an updated 'Translation' of the BoM (like is done printed in parellel with Beowulf, Shakespeare, etc), from my experience, one simply isn't "Well, it really won't encourage people read the scriptures more anyway." - because, in my experience, having an alternative would, has, and does help people feel connected, and that God is speaking to them.

You may very well be correct but I don't think it is the language keeping most from reading their scriptures more. It is the same problem I have. I get sidetracked with other things (discussion boards) and just don't do it.

[David T]

You may very well be correct but I don't think it is the language keeping most from reading their scriptures more. It is the same problem I have. I get sidetracked with other things (discussion boards) and just don't do it.

That's true. But if language was a stumbling block keeping some thousands discouraged, and that this block could be substantially removed and get more people to approach the scriptures, why wouldn't we want to do that?

[Saints Alive]

You may very well be correct but I don't think it is the language keeping most from reading their scriptures more. It is the same problem I have. I get sidetracked with other things (discussion boards) and just don't do it.

That is like saying we shouldn't do anything about AIDS because more people die from cancer.

[ERayR]

That is like saying we shouldn't do anything about AIDS because more people die from cancer.

Melodramatic aren't we? When you must resort to hyperbole you are grasping.

[cinepro]

As much as some of you may feel that's silly, it's a real concern.1600s English isn't God's Official language. It's not the language of reverence. The language of reverence is the language in which anyone communicates with and seeks after their Father, and by which they can hear his voice.

While there may be good reasons not to offer an updated 'Translation' of the BoM (like is done printed in parellel with Beowulf, Shakespeare, etc), from my experience, one simply isn't "Well, it really won't encourage people read the scriptures more anyway." - because, in my experience, having an alternative would, has, and does help people feel connected, and that God is speaking to them.

While focusing on language in prayers, Elder Oaks' comments might also indicate the feeling of Church leaders towards archaic English in the scriptures:

The special language of prayer follows different forms in different languages, but the principle is always the same. We should address prayers to our Heavenly Father in words which speakers of that language associate with love and respect and reverence and closeness. The application of this principle will, of course, vary according to the nature of a particular language, including the forms that were used when the scriptures were translated into that language. Some languages have intimate or familiar pronouns and verbs used only in addressing family and very close friends. Other languages have honorific forms of address that signify great respect, such as words used only when speaking to a king or other person of high rank. Both of these kinds of special words are appropriately used in offering prayers in other languages because they communicate the desired feelings of love, respect, reverence, or closeness.

Modern English has no special verbs or pronouns that are intimate, familiar, or honorific. When we address prayers to our Heavenly Father in English, our only available alternatives are the common words of speech like you and your or the dignified but uncommon words like thee, thou, and thy which were used in the King James Version of the Bible almost five hundred years ago. Latter-day Saints, of course, prefer the latter. In our prayers we use language that is dignified and different, even archaic.

The men whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have consistently taught and urged English-speaking members of our Church to phrase their petitions to the Almighty in the special language of prayer. President Spencer W. Kimball said, “In all our prayers, it is well to use the pronouns thee, thou, thy, and thine instead of you, your, and yours inasmuch as they have come to indicate respect.” (Faith Precedes the Miracle, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1972, p. 201.) Numerous other Church leaders have given the same counsel. (See Stephen L Richards, in Conference Report, Oct. 1951, p. 175; Bruce R. McConkie, Ensign, Jan. 1976, p. 12; and L. Tom Perry, Ensign, Nov. 1983, p. 13.)

Perhaps some who are listening to this sermon in English are already saying, “But this is unfamiliar and difficult. Why should we have to use words that have not been in common use in the English language for hundreds of years? If we require a special language of prayer in English, we will discourage the saying of prayers by little children, by new members, and by others who are just learning to pray.”

Brothers and sisters, the special language of prayer is much more than an artifact of the translation of the scriptures into English. Its use serves an important, current purpose. We know this because of modern revelations and because of the teachings and examples of modern prophets. The way we pray is important.

The Language Of Prayer (emphasis added)

Edited October 27, 2011 by cinepro

[Saints Alive]

Melodramatic aren't we? When you must resort to hyperbole you are grasping.

That is nether melodramatic, nor hyperbole. Granted AIDS and cancer are more serious than modernizing scripture, the comparison is dead on. Perhaps reviewing the definition of melodrama and hyperbole would help you.

[mnn727]

Which is an excellent point. How many would find another excuse.

yes, many more would read on a regular basis.

We read a modern language Bible daily in our house since we finally gave up trying to read the KJV Reading the KJV would happen very infrequently because many parts made no sense whatsoever.

I wonder how many Mormons have actually read the KJV Bible cover to cover - not skipping a single chapter.

I also wonder how many Mormons get through the Isaiah chapters in the BoM. and how many currently read the BoM on a regular basis. I would bet the number is much smaller than many of you seem to think.

Edited October 27, 2011 by mnn727

[ERayR]

yes, many more would read on a regular basis.

We read a modern language Bible daily in our house since we finally gave up trying to read the KJV Reading the KJV would happen very infrequently because many parts made no sense whatsoever.

I wonder how many Mormons have actually read the KJV Bible cover to cover - not skipping a single chapter.

I also wonder how many Mormons get through the Isaiah chapters in the BoM. and how many currently read the BoM on a regular basis. I would bet the number is much smaller than many of you seem to think.

Great you are doing a better job than I.

What is the virtue of reading cover to cover not skipping a single chapter. That is not how I work. I think I did that a Long, long time ago. (not sure though) (pretty sure though as I was going through it with a commentary) (That was just the Old Testament though). I read topics.

[KevinG]

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=1_Nephi_1

Presented without comment.

1 Nephi 1

From LOLCat Bible Translation Project

Jump to: navigation, search

TEH BUK UV MEOWMON

Udder Stori uv Happy Cat

TEH FURST BOOK OV NEFI, HIS RAIN AN MINSTREE

Teh stori ov Lehi an wife Sariah an him 4 kittehs, calld, (frum teh oldst) Laman (boos), Lemuel (hiss), Sam, an Nefi (hey, datz meh!). Happy Cat shout out 2 Lehi 2 scatz out ov Jeruzelem! ONO! GOWAY! GIT! Cuz Lehi tellz teh fyoochr 2 the kittehs boutz ther invisible error an dey go all creyzey an try keel him. Srsly! Lehi guy walkin tree daze n desert wit family. Nefi taek brudders bak 2 Jeruzelem 2 getz jewcats book (dey rly no wanna goez). No happy tiem. Brudders goed bak agin 2 getz Ishmael guy an hiz rly sooper hot dawters 2 marrie (dem brudders rly happy 2 goed bak dis tiem, gofig!). Big weddin partee, ya no!. All da kittehs go wandrin n teh desert. Sad tiemz. Cum 2 beeg waterz. Nefi's brudders sey "WTF!". Nefi pwnd dem an maek kool boat. Dem calld place Boutiful. Everbuddy goed on boat ovr beeg waterz 2 beeg plais wif lotz and lotz of cheezbrgrs. N udder stuffs happenz butz ai m tyard. Iz hard sratchin all dis on metal plaetz, ya no! Anywayz, ai Nefi scratchd dis, k?

[LeSellers]

I wonder how many Mormons have actually read the KJV Bible cover to cover - not skipping a single chapter.

I have, many times (except for the Song of Solomon, which are not inspired writings—but I've even read that a few times).

I love the Bible, Old Testament particularly, and Genesis most of all (especially with the JST/Moses material to fill in more than a few blanks). My favorite passages in all scripture are 3 Ne 17:27 and Doc&Cov 19:13~19—I can't read either passage without tearing up.

One year, just for fun, I read the Book of Mormon every month, and each of the other Standard Works each quarter. It's just not that hard: all told, there are only a few thousand pages.

Lehi

Edited October 27, 2011 by LeSellers

[Deborah]

I wonder how many Mormons have actually read the KJV Bible cover to cover - not skipping a single chapter.

I have. It was a challenge I made to myself to read from cover to cover.

[mnn727]

You may very well be correct but I don't think it is the language keeping most from reading their scriptures more. It is the same problem I have. I get sidetracked with other things (discussion boards) and just don't do it.

Thats you, Our family has found we actually look forward to reading the modern language Bibles whereas it was all we could do to force ourselves to read the KJV infrequently

My whole pointis to get rid of roadblocks and archaic language is one heck of a roadblock for millions of people.

[ERayR]

Thats you, Our family has found we actually look forward to reading the modern language Bibles whereas it was all we could do to force ourselves to read the KJV infrequently

My whole pointis to get rid of roadblocks and archaic language is one heck of a roadblock for millions of people.

I really think you are inflating the scope of the problem. Maybe an anthill for hundreds? Or somewhere in between?