Comments on: New Issue of the Book of Mormon, 1921

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:26:32 +0000

A neighbor in the ward I grew up in, Davidjohn Stosich, designed the gold foil covers. The church prepared that edition, and one with the Tom Lovell painting “Mormon Abridging the Plates” on the cover for a World’s Fair. They evidently thought a “mainstream cover” would resonate better.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:55:20 +0000

I remember those gold foil covers — from sometime in the ’70s, if I remember right. Lots of fun.

By: Virginia

Virginia — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 01:08:36 +0000

I just bought a copy of the book of mormon at a garage sale today. It was unique in that the cover of the book of mormon was a paperback and the cover was gold and marked as the golden plates were back in the time I suppose. A really fun find. Neat pictures.

By: Stephen Taylor

Stephen Taylor — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:54:43 +0000

I believe that the 1921 cross-referencing system utilized a page number-verse number system, which seemed pretty straightforward to me.

In 1965 there was a British blue hard cover printing of the Book of Mormon available in the U.S., with rounded corners for both the cover and the pages. This made the book easy to handle and carry around. It also had wide page margins in which to write the wise things Robert K. Thomas had to say in Book of Mormon class concerning the text. I really miss this edition.

By: Meghan

Meghan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:24:14 +0000

Wasn’t the 1921 edition the first to exclude the Lectures on Faith? I’m surprised they didn’t mention the omission. Or maybe I’m just wrong

By: Rameumptom

Rameumptom — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:05:30 +0000

I used the 1921 edition Quad my grandparents purchased for me for my mission (1978-80). My first look at the new scriptures were on my mission when Elder Gene R. Cook brought them out for us to look at/handle during a missionary conference. His were unmarked, because he was still very much attached to his old set that were also displayed, and very marked up.
I have gone through a few sets of the new scriptures. I like putting side notes through out, sharing my ideas on scriptures. When I feel a set is satisfactory, I give it to one of my kids or grandkids. Then I start fresh, which forces me to look at the scriptures from my current level of understanding, rather than only at previous levels of understanding.

I would like to see a new edition that improves upon the helps. While I admire the apostle, the helps and headers in the 1979 edition just have too much of Bruce R. McConkie in them. Our BoM and Biblical scholarship has leaped forward as much in the last 30 years, as in the previous century and a half. Our study aids should reflect this.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:16:09 +0000

I still have the copy of the Book of Mormon published in 1974 that my grandparents gave me for my baptism in 1980. I’m guessing it’s the 1920 edition. I keep it for sentimental reasons, and not because I actually ever read from it: as Kevin Barney said, the cross referencing is awful.

That said, it is gratifying to read the announcement above, with its references to making the new edition “a helpful and attractive volume” and more easily read, “Bible style.” Onward and upward!

Still crossing my fingers for a NIV-style edition of the Book of Mormon…

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:51:51 +0000

I’m not sure if any additional revelations would be added due to the JS Papers, but there are skads of corrections to headers (revelation dates and places) that have been found. It would be interesting to see if they would make textual changes to the Revelations themselves. Between the Critical Book of Mormon text and the JSP, though, it seems like a new edition makes sense. I wouldn’t expect anything for at least 20 years, though.

By: Velikiye Kniaz

Velikiye Kniaz — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:39:31 +0000

I’m still waiting for the last two-thirds of the plates to be translated and published. Despite all of the seeming ‘signs of the last days’ coming into alignment, when this volume comes forth then we’ll know for a certainty that the “end draweth nigh, yea, is even at the doors”. Some of my more skeptical brethren believe that it will never happen because 1.), we haven’t yet successfully applied all of the Gospel doctrines within the Book of Mormon to our lives to date, and 2.), there isn’t a prophet who is able/willing to do the translation and endure the subsequent firestorm of heat & flack from Biblical and Middle-eastern scholars over the work. My response is, “Let’s just wait and see. I never thought that I would see the things I’ve already seen, (the re-unification of Germany, the fall of the Soviet Union, etc.), so I’m open to being surprised again.”

By: Kevin Barney

Kevin Barney — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:23:45 +0000

I used the old 1921 edition on my mission, which went from 1977 to 1979. (The crossreferencing scheme in the old edition was terrible; I couldn’t make hears or tails of it, and was glad for the new system.) The upshot was that I had to get new scriptures shortly after coming home from my mission. So unlike most RMs, my scriptures don’t reflect alll of my missionary marking, but are pristine, with no marking whatsoever (I stopped feeling the need to mark scrips after my mission, as I can always find what I need easily enough.)