http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Read-Lynn-Matthews-Anderson/dp/0964495708

It has been around since 1995, but one hears very little about it.

“At the time KVJ was translated, it was translated into the language of the day.”

Not true, actually. Due to the instructions given the translators, the KJV language was archaic and outdated in several ways when it was published. See In the Beginning- The Story of the King James Bible, and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture.

“One of the most interesting aspects of the King James Bible is its use of ways of speaking that were already becoming archaic in the standard English of the first decade of the seventeenth century.” The KJV retained “older English ways of speaking in religious contexts, creating the impression that religious language was somehow necessarily archaic.”

Philip Barlow in Mormons and the Bible points out that for Joseph Smith and others, religious language *was* KJV language. Other translations of ancient texts, even until relatively recently, also often used archaizing English.

I wrote:

the religious language of Joseph’s time was the KJV.

I meant:

the scriptural language of Joseph’s time was the KJV.

That is a HUGE difference, and I appreciate the intelligent and thoughtful comments on what I actually wrote (given my oft-repeated belief in parsing, ironically). My apologies for the mistake.

Things like place and people names may have been, in some or all instances, altered unintentionally by him or even been a product of his mind. For instance, we find Joseph affixing “hah” to the end of many names, and doing that same thing many years later in the PoGP. “Antelope” may have come out as “cows”, and “using slingshots” may have come out as “riding chariots.” Nephi’s real name may have been “Bill.”

It is impossible to say how tainted this makes any holy writ, but all of it has passed through the mind of someone or other in being produced. I’d imagine that at certain points the relative strength of the revelation itself imposes language – but my personal experience leads me to believe that would be the exception. It seems to me that this does mean that we have to use the scriptural language not primarily on its own terms but as a door to pass through to spiritual understanding, approximating all the possible meanings contained in the original revelation. It looks to me that this is one of the realities that prompts Peter to say “Knowing this … that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” He is pointing to the source, and the necessity of accessing the source, rather than the flawed end product. ~

The criticism of the BOM language for transposing whole tracts of the KJV is valid enough but the real problem lies in the fact that the so-called KJV language of the BOM is no more than a poor pastiche of the original KJV and in parts is comical in its naivety. BTW the KJV was not “written in the language of the day”. The literary form of the KJV was already slightly archaic when first produced and phrases like “it came to pass”, ubiquitous in the original edition of the 19th century BOM, had already passed out of common usage by the early 17th century. It also uses English Latinate forms aavoured by the translators and so can hardly be called truly contemporary with the time of its publication. The beauty of the KJV is in the choice of archaic langauge forms that lend themselves to its purpose that it is “appointed to be read in churches.” If you want to hear for yourself read it aloud.

I rarely think about the translation process. For one of the changes in his inspired version of the Bible, Joseph changed sun to Son (or vice-versa–don’t remember). That change always seemed odd to me. Where in the process could that error have been made? I doubt sun/son are similar in the original text. Seems laughable that the u and o were changed in making the English version. In my ignorance I could be totally wrong–it just seemed like an odd (convenient?) change. Joseph did what he did and the BoM is what it is–a source of inspiration and revelation to millions, a farce to many more than that.

In regard to a “modern” English translation of the Book of Mormon. Does anyone remember the 16-volume Illustrated Book of Mormon that came out in the 70s? That was the first Book of Mormon that I read. My mom read it to me first, then I read it many time after that. I enjoyed the pictures quite a bit (particularly Nephi building the boat, but also the Allegory of Zenos/Olive Tree), but it wasn’t until years later that I looked back and realized that it was a far more ambitious project than I realized at the time. It had (as far as I can recall) the *entire* text of the Book of Mormon translated into modern English. The original text covered in each volume was included at the end of each volume for comparison. I have read the actual BofM many dozens of times, but my first testimony of it came as I read the illustrated version. I loved it.

Whenever people complain that we need a modern English version of the Book of Mormon (something I generally disagree with) I wonder if they ever investigated this version. What were its pros and cons? What was its impact? Why don’t we hear anything about it anymore?

I personally think that one of the pitfalls of any translation is the interpretation that must inevitably be made of the original text. I think mistakes were made in the interpretations that were made for both the 16-volume illustrated version and the Church’s current scripture “Stories” books. I’m okay with the books themselves, but the less layers of interpretation between the scriptures and me the happier I am.

Wisdom like this is why I read MM.

I would not expect revisers of the Book of Mormon to attempt such a revision without the original source material – i.e. the golden plates

Again, why? If Joseph Smith didn’t need the plates, why would any subsequent translation? The problem lies in calling the process used to create the BoM “translation” when clearly it wasn’t translation in any sense of the word. A more accurate word would be “revelation” or even “divination.”

I have absolutely no problem with creating a simplified version of the Book of Mormon in the English language for people like your late mother. I thought the issue of this post was revising the original Book of Mormon to be completely accurate with the English language we use today, which is a different question all together. As the revisers of the NRSV and other new translations are doing, I would not expect revisers of the Book of Mormon to attempt such a revision without the original source material – i.e. the golden plates.

If you don’t mind being unable to meet the needs of people like my late mother, then I agree completely. Nothing wrong with the current translation.

I guess it’s just my silly evangelical ideal that the God’s word ought to be accessible to everyone.

#33 However, for a true translation to be done appropriately, we would need the original source material to ensure the translation was correct.

So did God return the gold plates for the creation of the Spanish, Russian, French, etc. versions of the Book of Mormon? Or were they simply done inappropriately?

If those translations are considered inspired and authorized sans gold plates, then I really don’t see why there can’t be an inspired English revision without them.

I’m at work currently, but I’ll re-read RSR and see if I can find the source/footnote that deals with Joseph’s FIL’s account. I’ll get back to the thread tonight.

I think that’s a great idea. and I’m all for it. For the time being, we work with what we got.

I just went back to reread that portion of Rough Stone Rolling. My impression is that the plates are needed in close proximity for the translation to work right. Joseph never translated, or transcribed, the Book of Mormon without the plates close by.

Otherwise, why exactly would the Angel Moroni even give Joseph the plates if they really were not needed? To make him be a target of all the people in the area who wanted to steal the plates from him? Just doesn’t make sense. I mean, the plates are real. Too many witnesses to disprove the reality of the plates.

Just because there are witness who claim to have seen the plates, doesn’t mean they were used for translation. In fact, Bushman, in Rough Stone Rolling, clearly documents that the plates weren’t used in the traditional way one thinks of translation. They usually sat, covered, on the table next to Joseph while he looked at his seer stone in his hat and dictated the words that appeared to him. If I remember correctly, one of the sources cited by Bushman is the account of Emma’s father who reported that Joseph would translate with the plates still hidden in the woods and not even in the house where he was translating.

So it would seem to me that the BoM could be “re-revealed” to the current prophet without the plates returning from wherever they are. All President Monson would need is a seer stone and a hat. The church has Joseph’s seer stone in its possession and I’m pretty sure President Monson has a hat he could use.