“To facilitate the preservation of this relatively literal and therefore very accurate translation.” I think I missed something here.

“We strive to produce “modified-literal” translations of scriptures in order to provide an experience for target language readers that is very similar to the one readers of the original English text have.” I think that the name for that experience, especially as it relates to the KJV, is “muddling our way through texts we don’t really understand.”

It’s the same way we speak of “modern prophets” to emphasize that prophets have been restored in the present time.

“Latter-day” is about the Restoration, not about the last days.

I love the replicating ambiguity point. It is a necessary discussion, in my opinion, and I was not aware that attention was being given (a good start) and that the approach is what I would choose (hurrah).

I share the puzzlement over “literal = accurate”. I think (but would like to know more) that doesn’t really mean what it says. I think it means that the translator is trying to inject as little as possible of their own preconceived and possibly idiosyncratic understanding of the English text. “Literal” is like saying “it’s not me, it’s a more mechanical process.” I am skeptical, on multiple levels.

If there is a possibility for questions, or perhaps this is all coming(?):
>How do you think about the level or class or sophistication of the language? College educated . .. or primary education basic reading? Polite language or common/street language? In English one would ask Anglo-Saxon words or Latinate forms?
>For some languages (presumably where the numbers are small) there has been a “selected” version of the Book of Mormon including only some books and chapters. Is this still the case? What are we to take or learn from the selection?

–I’m interested in the assertion that “Since the time of Joseph Smith, the Church has followed a very conservative scripture translation philosophy, striving to be as literal to source texts as possible”. What do you have in mind when you say “from the time of Joseph Smith”? It would seem that the Book of Abraham is an instance of a radically NON-literal translation method. How do you account for the Book of Abraham under a strong mandate for literalness?

–on that vein, I’m interested in the implied syllogism in the phrase “relatively literal and therefore very accurate translation.” It seems that in typical translation scenarios, a literal translation could be significantly *less* accurate if it fails to convey the message or, in its literalness, picks up idiomatic or implied meanings external to the original. (Perhaps that is what is addressed in the idea of “modified-literal” — but then why cling so strongly to the literal ideal?) I understand that you are simply working under a mandate coming down from the presiding authorities, and you probably do not care to speculate on the “why.” Nevertheless, I find it fascinating and, clearly, a bit frustrating. :)

–on a positive note, I love your observations about the way in which collaborate translation work builds the initial community of Saints in a new area. Now THAT is something I recognize “from the time of Joseph Smith” onward. :)