BofM Part 1: LDS Church says NO to a Modern English Book of Mormon

This is the first post in a series about the Book of Mormon. 

In the April 1993 Ensign of the LDS Church there is a section titled "News of the Church" which has an article about the Book of Mormon.  

(This issue of the Ensign has a particularly interesting cover, containing Hebrew.  How the Church, Hebrew, The Book of Mormon and Israel have been interacting all these years is a very worthwhile topic.  See here for a worthwhile series on that topic).

The article says a Modern English version of the Book of Mormon is not only discouraged, but not authorized by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12. Here's the relevant section: 

From time to time there are those who wish to rewrite the Book of Mormon into familiar or modern English. We discourage this type of publication and call attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon was translated “by the gift and power of God,” who has declared that “it is true.” (Book of Mormon title page; D&C 17:6.) The Prophet Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth.” (History of the Church, 4:461.) It contains “the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (D&C 20:9.)

When a sacred text is translated into another language or rewritten into more familiar language, there are substantial risks that this process may introduce doctrinal errors or obscure evidence of its ancient origin. To guard against these risks, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve give close personal supervision to the translation of scriptures from English into other languages and have not authorized efforts to express the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon in familiar or modern English. (These concerns do not pertain to publications by the Church for children.) 

This same quote is also part of the current March 2021 General Handbook: Serving in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on page 410 (38.8.6).  From their concluding parenthetical, I guess it's ok for kids to learn scriptures in modern English, but adults apparently aren't so lucky.   

This idea of modern scripture comes up again and again.  People want words they understand.  It's a bit puzzling that the leaders would not address the need, but instead create a policy against it.  What's also curious is that the leaders give closer personal supervision of language translations of languages they don't even speak.  Yet they prohibit a modern English version, which is a language all of them speak.  Very curious.     

There's a couple underlying assumptions in that section from the handbook I hope to explore in this post.  But first some thoughts about the language.       

KJV Language:

King Jamesian English is often a barrier.  And the Book of Mormon has a lot of it.  Some publications do exist that are a modern English reference for the Book of Mormon.  Such as this one: A Plain English Reference to the Book of Mormon.  It presents itself as a reference and includes notes and things to assist readers of all ages.  And many people find it helpful.  The introduction states:  This book, A Plain English Reference to the Book of Mormon, reads on an 8th to 9th grade level, making it a useful tool for students of all ages.  This book was created to bridge the gap between the text of The Book of Mormon and the reading and/or word comprehension and/or signing skills of many people. 

Perhaps in order to not overstep the restriction imposed by that section from the handbook, that Plain English publication along with a few other modern English reference type publications seem to make an effort to stay within the parameters.  They present themselves as a reference or as tools to help younger readers. Not as an actual Book of Mormon scriptural text.   

Based on the reviews, people find value in it.  There's a clear desire from members to be able to read the Book of Mormon in a Modern Language that they both speak and understand. But the handbook makes it clear that a full modern language Book of Mormon is not authorized.  

The "King Jamesian" language of the Book of Mormon today, although English, can be foreign to modern readers causing people to frequently gloss over the material and gain limited understanding.  The youth especially feel more distant from the old English styles. It's possible to understand but it can be difficult and require tools and dictionaries not everyone has easy access to.  

Being accustomed to archaic biblical language is not the same as understanding it. The definitions of archaic words and phrases evolves with time. So just because you recognize a word or have read it a bunch of times does not guarantee the words still carry the same meaning as they did hundreds of years ago. So, if many of the words and grammar can carry different meaning today than they did in centuries past, would not reason suggest that our comprehension is negatively affected by this?  And would that not pass onto all of our lessons, discussions, not to mention pass into all the foreign language translations of the book?  

Wouldn't we want to treasure this book and bring it into as much light as possible in language we can all clearly comprehend?  Food for thought. 

Money vs Scriptures

When it comes to the Book of Mormon and our day, we must speak of Hugh Nibley.  Hugh Nibley lived and taught outside any of the Church's highest quorums and leadership positions.  Yet he was the one who brought the Book of Mormon to the forefront of the Church's attention and gave people meat to chew on. Hugh Nibley was able to say some things so bluntly it makes you almost laugh. Here's an example from an interview November 11th, 1982, ten years prior to the above Ensign article we've been talking about. 

And the two marks of the Church I see are and have been for a long time these: a reverence for wealth and a contempt for the scriptures. Naturally, the two go hand in hand. We should call attention to the fact that these things we are doing are against the work of the Lord. There is one saying of Joseph Smith I think of quite often. If the heavens seem silent at a time when we desperately need revelation, it is because of covetousness in the Church. “God had often sealed up the heavens because of covetousness in the Church.” And now the Church isn’t just shot through with covetousness, it is saturated with covetousness. And so the heavens are going to be closed. We’re told we don’t get revelation if we put our trust in money in the bank. (Hugh Nibley, Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2008)

Nibley seems almost prophetic when you look at the state of affairs in 2021.  We currently find the Church has $100+ billion dollars of amassed wealth, an army of volunteers and paid professionals, but yet curiously missing a modern English Book of Mormon (as well as a full BofM in Hebrew). It's as if the Church does have a reverence for wealth and a contempt for the scriptures. Nibley was not wealthy yet take a look at the fact that his work and teachings on the Book of Mormon completely dwarf any Church leaders' teachings on the same subject. In fact, in terms of Book of Mormon doctrinal education, the Church leaders are some of the most quiet.  

If you've ever had a church calling (or even a professional position), you know that Church positions don't magically give you doctrinal knowledge, scriptural understanding, or confer a new language on you.  The things of God are not obtained by merely possessing a Church office. That seems like common sense, but also worth stating.     

Most members assume that top church leaders have the most doctrinal understanding of anyone, and the leaders pretty much never do or say anything to counter such assumptions.  But what's interesting about those assumptions is when you glance at Church owned Deseret Bookstore, or the Church's website over the past 10 years.  There's a total absence of doctrinal books, scriptural commentaries, or anything historical authored by a member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12. The Church's leaders who are sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators interestingly don't explain prophetic history, now days they get permission from the scholars and professionals to use their work to explain it.  Below is one such example at the end of the Church essay about how the Book of Mormon came to be.  More on this in part 3. 

So, what does all this have to do with the Book of Mormon and Modern English?  If you pay attention to the news, in 2021 LDS Church leaders are publicly preoccupied with things like ever changing policies, handbooks, procedures, global managerial affairs, public health, and proclamations such as the Bicentennial Proclamation of April 2020 that reiterates commonly known Church beliefs. 

Given the sheer magnitude of managerial responsibilities the leaders carry, it's not a silly possibility to consider that perhaps many of the top leaders haven't spent a lot of time on the Book of Mormon's doctrinal content.  Perhaps placing them in an uncomfortable position of not wanting to oversee a modern English edition. This starts to be even more of a possibility when we see that the scholarly voice is what the sustained prophets seers and revelators looked to in order to even explain things such as the book's origins.  

The original section from the handbook above has the underlying premise that the leaders actually know the doctrinal content of the book, hence they give closer personal supervision to the translations.  But that premise does not appear to be super solid.  If the leaders do understand all the doctrinal content, then they are definitely withholding it from the members in every talk, sermon, and published book. 

I'm only posing questions as I look for answers.  Perhaps it's time to disturb the sounds of silence on this topic.  

What about the book being "true" and the "most correct book" isn't that reason enough not to touch the text?  

The reason given in the Ensign article for the "no-go" on a Modern English version was because the book is "true" and was translated by the gift and power of God. For leaders claiming those same gifts, powers, and positions, you'd think a modern text would be an obvious way for them to confirm to the world that they do indeed have these gifts. But apparently not. 

I don't take issue with the statements about the book being true, correct, and translated by the gift and power of God. But I do find issue when those statements misdirect the audience, and totally bypass all the relevant history.  For example, those statements imply that there haven't already been errors introduced into the text after Joseph Smith translated it. But there have been! The statements in the article imply that "all is well", everything is perfect, and give the impression that what you read today is precisely what Joseph put down.  But that is not accurate and gives a misleading impression.      

A quick recap of BofM history.

Perhaps the "risks" of introducing errors is something Church leaders know all too well, because such things are already part of the history of the book. With Sunday School now being reduced to 2 hours twice a month we're even less likely to ever hear about it.  We do hear a lot of feel-good stories though.  But we don't need more feel-good narratives or partial histories; we need the truth. And questions are a great way to try and find it.   

And so, we must ask: How was the BofM text handled subsequent to its divine transmission to Joseph Smith?  Pointing out how a spring of water is pure, good, and correct at its source can be terribly misleading if you neglect to tell your audience that the spring is not where they are presently drinking from. So, for purposes of this post, it's worthwhile to stop and assess where we all drink from and see what we need to do to get back to the source as best we can. 

Although Joseph Smith was the translator of the Book of Mormon, he didn't punctuate it.  What's interesting is how good of spellers some of the scribes were, some were much better than others.  But back to punctuation, that was done by John H. Gilbert’s. John H. Gilbert worked for E. B. Grandin, the publisher of the first edition. John Gilbert's effort resulted in somewhere between 30,000–35,000 punctuation marks. And we know some of them did/do not doctrinally match Joseph's teachings and has led to confusion and debate still today.  And that's just punctuation.  

Can punctuation change meaning?  

Here's a real-life example.  2 Nephi 9:13. You're going to have to read this slowly and carefully if you want to appreciate the point here.     

... and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like unto us in the flesh, save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect. 

Speaking of the immortal state, this passage says they (the immortals) are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like us in the flesh.  Wait, say what?  Since when do we (mortals) have a perfect knowledge here in the flesh like the immortals?  Then it goes on to say: "Save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect"?  Wait..... how will our knowledge be perfect at some later day if it's already perfect now in the flesh?         

The punctuation as it exists today in the LDS Book of Mormon is what you read above and what causes the confusion.  Why does it say the immortals have a perfect knowledge like us in the flesh if that's obviously not the case?  Punctuation.  

Try this, go up to the red words above and add a comma after "perfect knowledge".  Then read it that way.  Doing that makes the "having a perfect knowledge" a parenthetical which clarifies that the phrase "like unto us" was referring to the immortals and mortals both having a living soul, with a body and a spirit united.  The perfect knowledge bit was a parenthetical thought only applicable to the immortals.  The mortals will have to await a future day to have a perfect knowledge.  However, for now in the flesh, mortals have something in common with the immortals: A living soul.  Which as Joseph Smith defined soul is a spirit and body joined together.   

Second Example: 

Mosiah 3:8 (as it exists in the LDS cannon) 

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

It says Jesus is the Son of God.  The it says Jesus is the Father of heaven and earth. This can be confusing and has led to debates about this doctrine for decades.   

But what if we just move the comma that was placed after God?  Read it like this: 

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Father of Heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his Mother shall be called Mary. 

Now Jesus is not the Father of Heaven and Earth but is "the Son of God the Father of Heaven and of earth".  Doctrinal implications resulting from a comma.  

A few more humorous images of how much punctuation can change meaning. 

Ok, all of that was just the potential of punctuation.  Then there's typesetting.  The first edition typesetting was from the printer’s manuscript (technically 1/6 was from the original), which was Oliver Cowdery’s handwritten copy of the original manuscript. This first printer's manuscript edition in 1830 contained numerous scribal errors. The original, as was just mentioned, had been hand copied and the printer used the duplicate hand copy containing the errors.  That copy had on average of 1.5 copy errors per page.  

Joseph Smith revised the printed copy in 1837, and again in 1840 to try to eliminate errors and make the text more correct.  But he got killed so he never finished.  This is relevant textual history that gets hidden if all you tell people is that the book is true and was translated by the Gift and power of God.   

Then there's all the changes that have taken place since Joseph's death.  Decades after his death, Orson Pratt prepared an 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon where the chapters were re-divided (increasing them from 114 to 239) and verse numbers and references were added. One result of versification is that verses disconnect thoughts.  Whatever benefit they provide, they do disrupt thoughts. It's an interesting thing to read the Book of Mormon without verses. But anyway, then there was a 1920 edition prepared by James E. Talmage which included a double-column page layout, revised references, a pronouncing vocabulary, an index, and grammatical updates. 

We no longer have the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon to compare to. It was placed into the cornerstone of the Nauvoo temple. The cornerstone became unsealed, and nature did what nature does to poorly preserved items. It ruins them. Only 28 percent of the original pages survived in any form. So, it's impossible to see all of the original. 

Well, as mentioned, Joseph never finished his corrections. So yes, it was translated by the gift and power of God but as you can see, it's important to at least be familiar with the whole story.  Even Joseph throughout his life was still making corrections until his death. There remains doctrinal debate over various issues in the text still today.  Errors which provoked the Lord's condemnation of the Saints.  

Continued in part 2.