New Scripture Editions For 2013?

[Freedom]

I have discovered a few errors in the foot notes of the current edition and I know there was s survey where people could submit suggested changes or corrections.

As for using electronic or paper, there are huge benefits to using the printed word:

We learn through our senses: visual (where the item is on the page) kinestheticaly (where it is in the book), texture (the feel of the page), spatially (depth, width, height) and so forth. Much of this is lost with the electronic version in its current format. I find it easier to mark my scriptures and to visually see where my additions are. Also, if you loose your phone or the data, you loose all your research. It is still much easier to add a not to a book than to add one to an electronic device. It is also easier to reference to other locations and to have both a visual and kinesthetic grasp of where you are looking.

[Duncan]

My wife and I prefer to read the photocopy edition of the 1830 Book of Mormon. We have also shared it with other members (like during BoM reading challenges), and they have uniformly agreed with us that it reads much more smoothly. I read very fast, but there's something about the chapter and versification in the current 1981 edition that makes reading much more slow. Not that speed is the name of the game ---- not at all ---- but, the Book of Mormon reads much more smoothly in the original chapter divisions without verses.

I included some images from the original edition in a handout for a stake fireside we put on (my primary president presented, and I answered questions in Q&A. We had around 130 non-members attend our three part series) about criticisms of the Book of Mormon:

http://www.fillthene...ide_handout.pdf (page 11)

I am also a real low-tech guy, and always smile when predictions are made that paper books will be obsolete by ________. They will have to pry my books from my cold, dead fingers. I chose to discuss, among other things, during a combined RS/PH on a 5th Sunday the issue of tech use in Church. My ward is not different than others, and most adults (and most youth, now) seem to have their hymn books and scriptures on their devices. It's been a major problem with youth, and we don't allow them to have them out in class, but it's also a problem with adults, too. Many are web-surfing and checking email during sacrament meeting and class. I joked about spending $500 on a jammer that would cover our building's square footage and render any wireless or internet devices out of commission (can you imagine the outrage and torches and pitchforks?).

One thing we frankly talked about was whether the trend and habit to have all scriptures and books in e-format is reducing actual gospel scholarship among members. I think that with most people, it gives an illusion of gospel scholarship (anyone can key word search or find a chapter from a pull-down menu, but how many of these adults can find Habakkuk in their paper Bible?) because of the technology, while reducing people's affinity to actually study and get to know scriptures and books on their own terms. You see this with many people whose default setting is to find material on the internet for a talk, rather than sitting down and writing a talk out of their own resources and Gedankengut.

I've also noticed an over-reliance/dependency on the indexes and topical guides for finding information, which replaces actual familiarity with the scriptures. There are sometimes key references and items that cannot be found by key word searches or in the topical guide ---- gems that are only known and apparent to those who pay the price the hard/old-fashioned way. For example, D&C 46 (gifts of the Spirit) lists the first as knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, and the second as believing those who know, *that they also might have eternal life.* There are two other passages that support and expand on this in the D&C, but they are not searchable *at all* through key word searches or using the index or topical guide. They can only be found if someone knows they are there.

I think of what B.H. Roberts or Hugh Nibley did and produced with good old-fashioned notes, reading, and memory ---- and how inferior our results are with vastly superior techonological aids ---- literally with the sky being the limit.

you and I should have a sit down supper together sometime, because I agree wholeheartedly with this post!! I find that I get sleepy when reading too much online

[Scott Lloyd]

I have discovered a few errors in the foot notes of the current edition and I know there was s survey where people could submit suggested changes or corrections.

As for using electronic or paper, there are huge benefits to using the printed word:

We learn through our senses: visual (where the item is on the page) kinestheticaly (where it is in the book), texture (the feel of the page), spatially (depth, width, height) and so forth. Much of this is lost with the electronic version in its current format. I find it easier to mark my scriptures and to visually see where my additions are.

Blessedly, I have not encountered any of the handicaps or debilitations you describe here in my more-than-10-years' experience studying and using scriptures in electronic form.

Also, if you loose your phone or the data, you loose all your research.

One is just as prone to lose his hard-copy of the scriptures and to lose his research thereby.

Moreover, if you use the Church's app "Gospel Library," you can wirelessly and automatically back up your markings and annotations on your own personal study notebook at lds.org, and they will then be available to you on whatever electronic device you use.

If you lose your hard-copy scriptures or replace them with a newer set, can you transfer your marks and notes so easily? Those who are acclaiming the coming of a new edition of the paper scriptures must soon confront this problem.

It is still much easier to add a not to a book than to add one to an electronic device.

This simply isn't true when you've learned how to properly navigate your electronic scriptures application or software.

It is also easier to reference to other locations and to have both a visual and kinesthetic grasp of where you are looking.

With electronic linking and search capability available, a claim such as this is highly dubious.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It's been a major problem with youth, and we don't allow them to have them out in class, but it's also a problem with adults, too. Many are web-surfing and checking email during sacrament meeting and class.

Perhaps you have some way of knowing the use to which a class or congregation member you see at church is putting his electronic device. But I daresay the average observer does not. The device user might be looking up a cited scripture, or may be searching for a related scripture or perhaps a general conference talk or Ensign article or Bible Dictionary entry or passage from a Church manual to gain additional background and insight. He may be jotting down and preserving an insight he learned from a speaker or teacher or through personal inspiration. Maybe he is making a journal entry. He might be checking the "LDS Tools" app to find where in the ward a new member lives or what ward or stake calling a member holds. He might be looking up a hymn so he can participate in congregational singing because a hymnal is not readily accessible where he is sitting. He might be setting a calendar appointment to participate in a welfare project or ward activity or to remind him when stake conference is.

These are all uses I have made of my electronic device at church, and those who concluded I was "web-surfing" would be guilty of unrighteous judgment.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[swfarnsworth]

Such pronouncements as this strike me as a remedy in search of a problem. What reliable evidence is there that the use of electronic devices in Church meetings is causing any real harm? If it's a matter of observers getting upset when they see people in church using electronic devices, they need to look to their own spiritual welfare and perhaps focus on something more worthwhile than judging (or misjudging) what their fellow congregants are doing during the meeting.

As for the users of the devices, isn't it best to leave it to the user to determine for himself whether his device unavoidably distracts him from feeling the Spirit?

I agree. In my case, I use electronic scriptures at church because my tablet fits perfectly in my scripture bag, it's much lighter, and easier to flip between books. So far, playing angry birds or chess has been a non-temptation for all three blocks, though the same cannot always be said if I have to go to a meeting after third hour.

[Nevo]

I have been waiting for the print version to catch up with the online version. It looks like it might finally happen in the next year or so. I bought a new quad a couple of months ago and it still had the original 1981 introduction to the Book of Mormon—even though the "new" introduction has been around since 2006. I also noticed that the quality of the materials has deteriorated. The so-called "genuine leather" cover on this latest set is basically indistinguishable from a bonded leather cover (whereas the older genuine leather covers were supple and had a nice smell to them). The ink impression seems lighter too.

I would love it if the Study Helps were drastically overhauled but I don't expect that will happen while Thomas Monson and Boyd K. Packer are still around. The recent BYUtv documentary "That Promised Day: The Coming Forth of the LDS Scriptures" treats the cross-references, Topical Guide, and Bible Dictionary with such reverence that I figure they're probably here to stay for another generation or two. Personally, I think we'd be better off adopting the leaner, more concise helps found in the Spanish edition of the scriptures (which has fewer cross-references and replaces the unwieldy Topical Guide and badly dated Bible Dictionary with the efficient Guide to the Scriptures).

(BTW, anyone who thinks that we'd all be better off reading digital versions of the scriptures from handheld devices should read Nicholas Carr's The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains—preferably a paper copy.)

Edited October 5, 2012 by Nevo

[Duncan]

I have been waiting for the print version to catch up with the online version. It looks like it might finally happen in the next year or so. I bought a new quad a couple of months ago and it still had the original 1981 introduction to the Book of Mormon—even though the "new" introduction has been around since 2006. I also noticed that the quality of the materials has deteriorated. The so-called "genuine leather" cover on this latest set is basically indistinguishable from a bonded leather cover (whereas the older genuine leather covers were supple and had a nice smell to them). The ink impression seems lighter too.

I would love it if the Study Helps were drastically overhauled but I don't expect that will happen while Thomas Monson and Boyd K. Packer are still around. The recent BYUtv documentary "That Promised Day: The Coming Forth of the LDS Scriptures" treats the cross-references, Topical Guide, and Bible Dictionary with such reverence that I figure they're probably here to stay for another generation or two. Personally, I think we'd be better off adopting the leaner, more concise helps found in the Spanish edition of the scriptures (which has fewer cross-references and replaces the unwieldy Topical Guide and badly dated Bible Dictionary with the efficient Guide to the Scriptures).

(BTW, anyone who thinks that we'd all be better off reading digital versions of the scriptures from handheld devices should read Nicholas Carr's The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains—preferably a paper copy.)

you're also cordially invited to Rongo's and my supper!

[Scott Lloyd]

Personally, I think we'd be better off adopting the leaner, more concise helps found in the Spanish edition of the scriptures (which has fewer cross-references and replaces the unwieldy Topical Guide and badly dated Bible Dictionary with the efficient Guide to the Scriptures).

"Guide to the Scriptures" is available in English in electronic form to anyone who is interested.

It's greatly pared down from the English study helps, for logistical reasons, so it can be translated and included with non-English editions of the scriptures. But I don't know that I would agree that it's more efficient.

(BTW, anyone who thinks that we'd all be better off reading digital versions of the scriptures from handheld devices should read Nicholas Carr's The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains—preferably a paper copy.)

Don't keep me in suspense. Tell me, as concisely as you can, what the Internet is doing to my brain. It sounds very sinister.

And don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that "we'd all be better off reading digital versions of the scriptures from handheld devices." I'm saying that's what works for me. To each his own.

What I am doing is vigorously resisting those who try to pressure us all into leaving our electronic devices at home when we go to church, or who agitate for "protocols" governing their use at church, because they are absolutely convinced that we are all up to no good whenever we have our devices turned on at church.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder if the dire predictions of consequences associated with the use of scriptures in digital form will one day be found on lists such as this.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

What I am doing is vigorously resisting those who try to pressure us all into leaving our electronic devices at home when we go to church, or who agitate for "protocols" governing their use at church, because they are absolutely convinced that we are all up to no good whenever we have our devices turned on at church.

In my case, I was addressing a problem in my ward as a bishop, using the 5th Sunday 3rd hour. It was much more a case of counseling together, and then receiving counsel from the priesthood leader.

There were no "protocols" implemented, and no "pressuring," but we discussed it. Use of electronic devices was not banned, but I can tell you this ----- you are naive if you think that most people using handhelds in Church are solely doing pertinent referencing of the talks/lessons. There is a lot of Facebooking, Pinteresting, email-checking, score-checking, and stuff like MDDB-checking and posting going on, too. And most of these people will be the first to own up to it in a frank-but-comfortable discussion.

Perhaps you have some way of knowing the use to which a class or congregation member you see at church is putting his electronic device. But I daresay the average observer does not.

In many cases, I had/have direct knowledge (seeing the screen a couple of rows ahead, for example). Would you agree, though, Scott, that if a person spends the majority of the three hours with the eyes cast down, looking at the screen and scrolling, there's something wrong ---- even if they are

looking up a cited scripture, or may be searching for a related scripture or perhaps a general conference talk or Ensign article or Bible Dictionary entry or passage from a Church manual to gain additional background and insight. He may be jotting down and preserving an insight he learned from a speaker or teacher or through personal inspiration. Maybe he is making a journal entry. He might be checking the "LDS Tools" app to find where in the ward a new member lives or what ward or stake calling a member holds. He might be looking up a hymn so he can participate in congregational singing because a hymnal is not readily accessible where he is sitting. He might be setting a calendar appointment to participate in a welfare project or ward activity or to remind him when stake conference is.

and whatever other "good" things you can think of? At some point, should we expect people to more-or-less listen to talks/lessons and ponder responses instead of using all of these super-cool apps and devices to do lots of on-the-spot research in that instant?

And that's assuming that most people are 100% purely doing all of these "good" things in conjunction with the lesson or talk. You are naive if you think this is the rule.

[Scott Lloyd]

In my case, I was addressing a problem in my ward as a bishop, using the 5th Sunday 3rd hour. It was much more a case of counseling together, and then receiving counsel from the priesthood leader.

There were no "protocols" implemented, and no "pressuring," but we discussed it.

I'm not in a position to second-guess what you as a bishop did to address a problem you perceived in your own ward. If it was indeed a problem, and you handled it the way you did, and it worked out well, great. Good for you.

What bothers me, though, is one-size-fits-all directives that impact and limit everybody, not just the problem children. Like the stake conference speaker swfarnsworth told us about who stood at the pulpit and told everybody they should leave their devices home -- ostensibly including the stake president himself who in that very meeting and from that very pulpit used his smartphone to look up a quotation he needed for the sermon he was delivering.

Or the writer on the "Meridian" site who is calling for "protocols" to be established to address what, according to his own article, he's not even certain is a problem.

These devices and their associated software and services are a valuable tool -- even at church -- for those who have the maturity to use them as such. Don't hinder everybody from using them just because you suspect some among them aren't using them the way you think they should.

Use of electronic devices was not banned, but I can tell you this ----- you are naive if you think that most people using handhelds in Church are solely doing pertinent referencing of the talks/lessons.

There is a lot of Facebooking, Pinteresting, email-checking, score-checking, and stuff like MDDB-checking and posting going on, too.

I don't assume that most people are using their devices inappropriately at Church. I don't have any basis for that assumption; I haven't taken any surveys. I doubt you have either.

But even if they are, what about the concept of teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves? Teach the importance of reverence, attentiveness, etc., if need be. Once such lessons are internalized, electronic devices cease to be a problem -- if they ever were in the first place.

Is it really such an egregious thing that we have to resort to draconian measures like telling people from the pulpit to leave their devices home or implementing "protocols"?

And most of these people will be the first to own up to it in a frank-but-comfortable discussion.

Great. If they're being that candid, you have an opportunity to deal with them one-on-one instead of imposing universal directives that for a good many, I suspect, would do more harm than good.

But it occurs to me that some who do use their devices appropriately at church and who would be bothered by your calling into question their use of them would be reluctant to say so. A straight-arrow ward member would likely deem it unmannerly to contradict or challenge the bishop in front of other ward members in a classroom setting. I suspect the discussion might not have been altogether as candid as you think it was.

In many cases, I had/have direct knowledge (seeing the screen a couple of rows ahead, for example). Would you agree, though, Scott, that if a person spends the majority of the three hours with the eyes cast down, looking at the screen and scrolling, there's something wrong ---- even if they are

and whatever other "good" things you can think of? At some point, should we expect people to more-or-less listen to talks/lessons and ponder responses instead of using all of these super-cool apps and devices to do lots of on-the-spot research in that instant?

I taught gospel doctrine class for quite a number of years. I was always glad when I saw class members poring over their scriptures, thumbing through pages, looking things up. It meant they were learning, thinking, pondering cogitating, formulating comments and insights that they could share in the class. I did not need them to all have their eyes glued on me 100 percent of the time to believe I was doing any good as a teacher. I saw my role as discussion leader and learning facilitator rather than lecturer.

I always appreciated a well-placed and thoughtful comment, but I relished those in which the commenter supported his words with an appropriate scriptural reference or a citation from a First Presidency message, a Bible Dictionary entry or other such documentation.

The LDS editions of the scriptures are equipped with some wonderful study aids: explanatory footnotes, cross references, JST selections, Topical Guide, Index, maps, Bible Dictionary, chapter headers and synopses. Does it bother you in, say, a classroom setting when people are making use of these aids, or do you only get annoyed when they use an electronic device?

And that's assuming that most people are 100% purely doing all of these "good" things in conjunction with the lesson or talk. You are naive if you think this is the rule.

And I think you are being cynical if you believe inappropriate use of them constitutes a problem so egregious and pervasive in the Church that it calls for heavy-handed, universal controls, directives and prohibitions. For my own part I will continue to resist such a movement because, as I said, I don't believe circumstances justify it. Nothing in my own observation suggests that they do.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

I don't see that the study aids in the LDS editions of the scriptures are for "proof-texting" either. Rather, they are meant to facilitate a deeper and broader understanding of the gospel by helping the reader unify their content in his study. To ignore them is to miss out on a wonderful tool that the Lord has placed in our hands through the diligent work of those who were called to it.

In 1985, not long after the LDS editions of the scriptures were introduced, Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

That said, I don't mean to discount the value of Hardy's reader's edition, for which I have seen nothing but praise.

I've actually gotten more out of using a (hardcopy) of a pocket edition of Crudden's Concordance than I have from the topical guide.

[volgadon]

"Guide to the Scriptures" is available in English in electronic form to anyone who is interested.

It's greatly pared down from the English study helps, for logistical reasons, so it can be translated and included with non-English editions of the scriptures. But I don't know that I would agree that it's more efficient.

I dunno, for me, even using the Ukrainian version of the guide (a language I am not entirely proficient in) feels more eficient than the topical guide and Bible dictionary.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've actually gotten more out of using a (hardcopy) of a pocket edition of Crudden's Concordance than I have from the topical guide.

Rather limited in its application to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, I daresay. (Cruden's, I mean.)

Edited October 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

Rather limited in its application to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, I daresay. (Cruden's, I mean.)

On the contrary, that is actually where I find it has great application. I can track down a word or phrase to where it appears in the KJV, allowing me to gain a better appreciation of the subtext.

[Freedom]

Blessedly, I have not encountered any of the handicaps or debilitations you describe here in my more-than-10-years' experience studying and using scriptures in electronic form.

You, then, are not a visual or kinesthetic learner. Research shows that people learn better from actual books. The electronic version has a way to go yet.

[zerinus]

I wish they would do us an edition where the Bible Dictionaty, Topical Guide etc. will be printed as a separate volume so the scriptures themselves wouldn't be so massive and heavy to carry around and read. I didn't think it required a lot of imagination to think of that. They already provide several options on how you want to buy your set of scriptures. Why not add this option to it? I am sure I am not the only one who would prefer and appreciate that particular option.

Edited October 6, 2012 by zerinus

[Calm]

The fewer options there are the less cost to producing them. That is why they have fewer colours and varieties than they have had in the past..to cut down on costs and make them more affordable.

[MormonMason]

I would like to see the Apocrypha added back to the LDS Bible in a future edition. I don't think I will live to see, it, though. I am just jazzed about the new edition of the Book of Mormon being worked on so I can stand a little disappointment if the Apocrypha aren't added back into Bibles.

[zerinus]

The fewer options there are the less cost to producing them. That is why they have fewer colours and varieties than they have had in the past..to cut down on costs and make them more affordable.

I would pay for the option of my choice! Actually, I am sure your point is entirely accurate. I don't think it is less expensive to produce brown leather than blue leather, and the cost of producing the books isn't going to be any different. The option I suggested might be more expensive because it entails adding another volume to the collection; but it would be a cost that people who prefer that option (like myself) would be willing to pay.

Edited October 6, 2012 by zerinus

[swfarnsworth]

I wish they would do us an edition where the Bible Dictionaty, Topical Guide etc. will be printed as a separate volume so the scriptures themselves wouldn't be so massive and heavy to carry around and read. I didn't think it required a lot of imagination to think of that. They already provide several options on how you want to buy your your set of scriptures. Why not add this option to it? I am sure I am not the only one who would prefer and appreciate that particular option.

I would rather see them moved to the Triple to balance out the size of both books. They can also remove the Song of Solomon.

I would like to see the Apocrypha added back to the LDS Bible in a future edition. I don't think I will live to see, it, though. I am just jazzed about the new edition of the Book of Mormon being worked on so I can stand a little disappointment if the Apocrypha aren't added back into Bibles.

D&C 91. Even though someone might benefit from reading it, the Lord apparently does not consider it important enough to include.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would pay for the option of my choice! Actually, I am sure your point is entirely accurate. I don't think it is less expensive to produce brown leather than blue leather, and the cost of producing the books isn't going to be any different. The option I suggested might be more expensive because it entails adding another volume to the collection; but it would be a cost that people who prefer that option (like myself) would be willing to pay.

My observation over the past three decades is that the Church leaders earnestly desire that the Latter-day Saints familiarize themselves with the study helps and make good use of them. Doing what you are calling for here would work against that intent, and thus I can't see why the Church would or should do it.

I don't find the scriptures all that burdensome to carry, even with the supplementary material, but if you do, get a pocket-size set -- or carry them on a handheld device.

[19nazzy]

Indirectly, yes.

Heard the same thing around here as well. I was recently at a distribution centre and someone ahead of me was looking to buy scriptures. They wanted a certain colour but it wasn't in stock, which led to a discussion about how the church is eliminating the number of SKUs of the scriptures.

[zerinus]

My observation over the past three decades is that the Church leaders earnestly desire that the Latter-day Saints familiarize themselves with the study helps and make good use of them. Doing what you are calling for here would work against that intent, and thus I can't see why the Church would or should do it.

While I agree that the gospel is a good thing, ramming it down people's throats is not. I want my scriptures the way I want them, not the way somebody else thinks I should want them. And in any case, the Topical Guide, footnote references, and some of the other references in the LDS scriptures are not all that well done, and there is room in them for much improvement. I personally use them rarely anyway, so for me it wouldn't make much of a difference. I am guessing that that goes for most other Church members too. I still have my pre-1979 edition of the LDS Bible, with the original cross-references (not made by LDS); and I find those references far more useful and intelligently done than the LDS ones. When I am stuck for something, I usually find them much more useful in finding what I want than the LDS made references. The only drawback to them is of course that they do not include the modern revelations of the Church. But the basic principle by which they are done is superior to LDS made ones.

I don't find the scriptures all that burdensome to carry, even with the supplementary material, but if you do, get a pocket-size set

That doesn't help a lot, LOL!, because the thicknes of the thing still remains the same, which makes it awkward to handle. Only the height and width of the thing is diminished, and the print made smaller, which just makes it harder to read.

-- or carry them on a handheld device.

Yes, for Church and class work, that is my preferred option; but for relaxing at home and reading my scriptures, it is not. I prefer to read my scriptures at home the old fashined way.

Edited October 6, 2012 by zerinus

[Scott Lloyd]

While I agree that the gospel is a good thing, ramming it down people's throats is not.

How nice that you agree that the gospel is a good thing.

But it's not ramming it down people's throats to provide supplementary material and study aids in the most cost-effective way possible.

I want my scriptures the way I want them, not the way somebody else thinks I should want them.

You are entitled to your preferences, but the Church is not obligated to accommodate them, especially when they conflict with what the Church wants to achieve.

And in any case, the Topical Guide, footnote references, and some of the other references in the LDS scriptures are not all that well done, and there is room in them for much improvement. I personally use them rarely anyway, so for me it wouldn't make much of a difference. I am guessing that that goes for most other Church members too. I still have my pre-1979 edition of the LDS Bible, with the original cross-references (not made by LDS); and I find those references far more useful and intelligently done than the LDS ones. When I am stuck for something, I usually find them much more useful in finding what I want than the LDS made references. The only drawback to them is of course that they do not include the modern revelations of the Church. But the basic principle by which they are done is superior to LDS made ones.

I, on the other hand, have been greatly blessed by the study helps in the LDS editions of the scriptures, and scarecely a day goes by when I do not benefit from them in some way. I cannot conceive of how my needs as a Latter-day Saint could be better met by study aids produced by sectarian Christianity.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Scott Lloyd