Comments on: Why do we use Old English when saying prayers?

By: Arnie

Arnie — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 06:02:00 +0000

The church published a new French version I think around 1998 or 1999, the old one had the asterisks, the new one doesn’t. And if someone is reworking the King James Version of the Bible into “modern English” then it is no longer the King James Version of the Bible. The Lord has given us these wonderful scriptures, we need to put our effort into understanding them. Also the church has the following statement. “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.)” – Ensign April 1993, as quoted in Handbook 2

By: Norma Rosa

Norma Rosa — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:49:00 +0000

In reply to Shasta Jones. You are right, Shasta. I wish more members would research those pronouns and stop saying that we must use "thee" and "thou" in order to be 'respectful" to our Heavenly Father; we address Him in the familiar form.

By: Shasta Jones

Shasta Jones — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 00:41:00 +0000

I was surprised to learn that “thou” is familiar and “you” is formal. “Thou” would be like “Tu” in Spanish, a word you would use with someone on a first name basis–someone close to you.

By: Liz Perrott

Liz Perrott — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 18:47:00 +0000

I have been told that the B of M is not translated into archaic terms in other languages, only English. It is not just the Thee and though, it is the repetition of the sentence ‘ It came to pass’ which the French version has replaced by a line of asterisks. I am a native English speaker from England, and I find the archaic use of language prohibitive to understanding. If I am so busy trying to translate it into relatively modern English, I feel as if I am losing the depth of the content in the process. Some times I do not even understand some of the sentences. I recently found a book where someone had translated passages of the B of M into contemporary English and it was readily understandable. Even the King James Bible, which is where most of the references come from has been rewritten in contemporary English so that ordinary people can understand it.

By: Liz Perrott

Liz Perrott — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:53:00 +0000

I wonder why the English Version of the B of M uses such archaic language. I feel sure that when translated into other languages it doesn’t look for the archaic equivalent. It would be easier to read, especially for those who are not so good at literacy if it was translated into standard English.