The Book of Mormon: my own edition
I’ve been slowly working on a project to produce a version of the Book of Mormon which integrates modern grammar with textual corrections discovered in Royal Skousen’s Critical Text Project.
Royal Skousen has spent decades researching the original and earliest sources (and for that matter, eventually all major printed editions) of the Book of Mormon, and he has discovered thousands of errors and alterations transmitted through various editions from the original manuscripts to subsequent editions. None of these errors or alterations change the meaning of the text substantially, but there are numerous cases where relatively small meanings didn’t come through. One example is the final verse of the book, where the original manuscript, it has been discovered, read “..pleading bar of the great Jehovah”, but the first printed edition (and all subsequent editions) mistook this as “..pleasing bar of the great Jehovah”. (Incidentally, I’ve always found that mistaken word a bit jarring and puzzling – now I’ve learned why. That’s not how it was intended to read!)
My main reason for this is that for some time I’ve wanted to orate a “podcast” of the Book of Mormon, as I really don’t prefer any of the existing audio versions of this book; so while I’m doing that, why not do it with a text truer to the original manuscript?
Initially I even contacted Dr. Skousen himself, seeking permission. He seemed open to it, but deferred to Yale Press, forwarding my request there. Yale Press denied permission on the basis that they would want to authorize and organize such an effort through an established publisher. (I predict they never do.)
Nevertheless remaining curious, I got my own copy of The Earliest Text from Deseret Book. I was both very pleased and disappointed. The disappointment stems from decisions necessary to remain true to forming a “critical text”. This means a text reproducing the original manuscripts as faithfully as possible – right down to some of the weirder grammar – such as “if there be fault, it be the mistake of men” in the original title page – which, incidentally, I think is a perfect mistake. These grammar errors may be inherent to Joseph Smith’s dictation when he (early on) had little education in language. I don’t mean to marginalize The Earliest Text. Being strictly true to the original text doubtless has very worthwhile academic and historical application. But for the layman and everyday readers, it doesn’t. Joseph Smith himself made considerable grammatical and other emendations to the text for the third edition (dozens of times, he scratched out the very redundant phrase “and it came to pass”), and apostles and prophets who followed him down through the decades made numerous grammatical corrections, none of which alter the meaning of the text, all of which make it clearer and easier to read.
What pleases me in The Earliest Text is the plain layout, the spare devotion to only canonical text (none of the extensive introductions, cross-references, chapter introductions etc.), the preservation of initial section breaks as denoted by Joseph Smith, and Skousen’s very clear reworking of the punctuation from scratch. (The original manuscripts were, with very little exception, un-punctuated, continuous blocks of text. All periods, commas, semicolons etc. were added by the original type-setter.)
It dawned on me these facts (of my pleasure and disappointment) produce an opportunity.
The Earliest Text edition may arguably be under copyright as the first printing of all combined discoveries about the earliest text, plus Skousen’s completely reworked punctuation. What it does not have is the grammatical emendations of later editions – which are all in the public domain. Very little has been altered since Orson Pratt’s grammar emendations and versification of the text early last century.
I can combine the two without violating anyone’s copyright.
My edition will integrate these of Skousen’s findings: 1.) Correction of all errors that alter meaning, such as “pleasing” to “pleading”, 2.) All language that supports the original text’s self-consistency, such as the identified “Hebraisms” – for example, so many conjoining clauses prefixed with the word “and” 3.) All grammatical emendations subsequent to the original publishing which clarify meaning, and 4.) Perhaps even some of my own grammatical corrections. For example, where Lehi says “..behold, I have obtained a land of promise, in the which things I do rejoice”. If this isn’t evidently originating in any language phenomenon inherent to the text before translation, why not simply reduce this to “in which I rejoice”? No change in meaning, and plenty of improvement in clear grammar.
Unfortunately, producing a new edition of the text is an involved undertaking. But modern technologies are speeding it up vastly (such as Optical Character Recognition grabbing me a full 1921 text, from a scan of an edition of that year downloadable from archive.org).
I have a full text; I’m working out OCR scanning errors. I’m aiming for a layout akin to the first edition, but maintaining verse numbers unobtrusively.
Hours ago I accidentally ran into the work of a font designer who created a font intent on reproducing a style of typeface in wide use in the 1800′s through early 1900′s, but which was subsequently almost entirely abandoned. I’ve incorporated this font into a page layout and title page design first draft; I’m very pleased with it. Here is a link to a pdf export: 1921-bookofmormon00smituoft-editcopy3-title-pages-design1
This entry would probably best be at a new blog devoted to the project; but I’ll have a section here devoted to it as well; so maybe I’ll just copy relevant stuff to.. whatever.. new blog.

Honestly, another [admin edit: blah blah blah derisive insult.] How about you look outside of yourself – ever done that? Have you bothered to see if anyone else already conceived, worked AND produced such an edition? Honestly, God isn’t happy with selfish, self-centered people, but rather, servitude. Maybe, instead of reinventing a modern Book of Mormon, you could assist others who ALREADY have.
This anonymous poster from IP address 71.139.65.214 (resolving to adsl-71-139-65-214.dsl.skt2ca.pacbell.net) hurls an insult, and then proceeds to grill me over facts unknown.
If they claim to value the book in subject, their behavior opposes it. That’s why they hide behind a false name, domain, and email. Which is sad. Because instead of opening to collaboration, they disregard the creativity of others as somehow innately injurious to theirs. More sadly, they seek to alleviate their own suffering by diminishing other people. (That, incidentally, is selfish.) It is also simply stupid to rage about what someone else doesn’t know and yet withhold from them what you’re angry they didn’t know.
Could the utopia described in the Book of Mormon ever be built on such attitudes?
And when undertaking to produce a book, is it necessary to check if it has “already been done”? It depends, and it’s really up to the person doing it, don’t you think? So how about this: lets not any of us presume to dictate to other people what books they should or should not create.
But thanks for letting me know there’s a market, Sparky!
By applying the same logic used by the poster known as “Honestly,” one would also have to dismiss Royal Skousen’s work “The Earliest Text” for the same reasons; since it was “reinventing a modern Book of Mormon,” and he instead could have “assisted others who ALREADY have.”
I of course strongly disagree. I don’t think the leaders of the church hope or expect that all research of the scriptural canon be confined to official church acts. The church mostly confines itself, speaking of its official actions, to producing what it wants the canon of scripture to be.
Of course there is a dividing line that a scholar shouldn’t cross when creating a version of a scriptural text, and I don’t think Alex crosses that line. That line would be crossed if you claimed that your own production of a scriptural text was superior to the official canon text, but only in terms of it being better in its potential ability to accomplish what the Lord intends to accomplish with the official canon text.
(I think the Book of Mormon itself defines that line, saying:
I don’t believe Alex in any way is “condemning” the Book of Mormon, official canon version. “Condemn” is “to pronounce as evil or unfit for use.” I don’t think Alex is doing that at all.)
Further, the Lord does not claim that the Book of Mormon contains “ALL TRUTH” (Although it does claim that it contains the portion of truth necessary to come to Christ.)
So, to gain all truth, if that is one’s desire- which desire is worthy- one must go beyond the Book of Mormon. I guess that’s why the Lord created FARMS (now Neal A. Maxwell Institute). I guess that’s why the Lord permits personal scholarship, such as Hugh Nibley’s works, Bruce R. McConkie’s works, Robert J. Matthews works, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
I think where “Honestly” is misunderstanding the issue is at the core of what Alex’s intent is. Alex is not subverting the official version in any way. His proposed version would be a fantastic resource in studying the history of the translation of the Book of Mormon, would act as a catalyst to the creation of counter-works that point out what Hebraism’s, etc. were lost in Alex’s translation, etc.
We are commanded by the Lord, through his prophets, in the Book of Mormon, to not “condemn” it, or as I pointed out, “pronounce it evil or unfit for use.”
“Condemn” is a good word to describe what “Honestly” has done to Alex’s proposed version. A condemnation that I believe is wholly unholy.
“..the poster known as ‘Honestly’.” Ah ha ha!
Thank you for your supportive comments. And, erm.. I’m not sure I’d call my proposed version a “translation”.
My impression is that the poster known as Honestly is peeved I’m creating something that already exists (and which, I presume, they created). They may eat their peevishness, and continue telling the world how it tastes, in fits of nasty anonymous comments.