And, fwiw, in spite of the inherent distractions that phones are, there are ways that teachers can channel them to the good. When I teach at church (or rather, when I teach adults), I often prepare a Tumblr with relevant links and give the class the address at the beginning, so that if they want to tune out, they can read stuff relevant to the discussion. (I talk about it at https://bycommonconsent.com/2015/08/05/gospel-topics-essays-lessons-book-of-mormon-and-book-of-abraham/.)

And I just finished a class in online teaching offered by my employer, which talked at significant length about how technology can supplement traditional teaching.

I mean, I agree with you that the availability of phones absolutely destroys class where the teaching isn’t very good. I’ve been known to slip out of a lesson and into Twitter, and that’s a problem. At the same time, though, it presents significant valuable and pedagogically-sound opportunities. It forces us, as teachers, to change our lessons from the ones we’ve grown up with, though, and into something more engaging and active. And honestly, I think that would have been a valuable move to make, even if technology hadn’t forced it on us.

Hmmm… As an extreme introvert, I’d say the opposite is true for people like me. Online forums allow me to participate in group discussions, etc., in a way I actively avoid otherwise. I see the movement toward online interactions as a way to rebalance the huge swing toward extrovert social patterns and our love (diefication) of ‘personality’ that occurred in the early 1900s.

There are six apostles over 80 so there’s going to be some sudden attrition over the next few years. Admittedly of the junior members you don’t see many with that interest in scholarship that others, like Oaks, have had. But it’s possible we’ll see a shift in what’s focused on as other figures become more dominant. (Recognizing again that a combination of responsibilities and the increasing age/enfeebleness of many of the apostles limit what they can do compared to say the 70’s and 80’s)

The main argument against any change is due to the huge dependency of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and even our theology on the language of the King James Version. Phrases can have a theological meaning and role somewhat separated or at least expanded from the original Biblical verses. Although the degree to which this actually happens in practice is I think greatly exaggerated. (The RSV of 2 Peter 1:10 for instance doesn’t affect Mormon theology that I can see for instance)

I’d note that when it comes to non-English translations the Church has been far more open to change. It’s that use of the KJV language and phrasing by Joseph in translations and even new revelations that is pretty significant. Although in particular verses I think it’s really just idiom rather than real quotations – a way to convey meaning. So D&C 109:73 quotes Song of Solomon 6:10 but I don’t think there’s really much significance in meaning to the quotation. It’s more that the language of scripture perfused Joseph’s mind when he received revelation. (It’s somewhat common even today when people pray or give blessings – again often only loosely connected to the original context)

I’d note relative to that example that there are some changes between the KJV and NKJV on that verse. The word “terrible” has come to have a connotation that it didn’t in the 16th century. (Interestingly “awesome” is an other word that’s changed meaning a lot)

Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners? (KJV)

Who is she who looks forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, awesome as an army with banners? (NKJV)

You can see that this leaves one with a bit of a conundrum. Do you change D&C 109 to use “awesome” instead of “terrible”? It might seem minor here but I can see people wondering if there might be some significant change that happens they don’t like.

My position is that Joseph saw scripture as pretty flexible. He repurposed a lot of the texts from the Book of Commandments into the Doctrine and Covenants. So shifting minor words like this seems like a trivial matter. However I think people note the fundamental difference between doing that as an act of prophecy such as Joseph did versus doing it to modernize language often in an uninspired (or at least less inspired) way.

Tangential, but I’m curious about the concept of taking an older public domain version vs. the current text. Why wasn’t current text used?

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Readers-Grant-Hardy/dp/025207341X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481216007&sr=1-1&keywords=grant+hardy+book+of+mormon

I have this book and it is remarkable how different the experience of reading and studying the BofM is when this simple change is made.

I’d add that I think using the NKJV and simply licensing the translation from Oxford would be helpful too. This is a nice middle ground between using a modern translation and sticking with the KJV. It simply updates spellings and replaces archaic words or words with significantly changed meaning with modern synonyms. Here’s an example with 2 Cor 2. (It also corrects a few egregiously bad errors in the KJV due to better underlying texts)

Ideally what would then happen is modernizing somewhat the D&C & BoM following the NKJV text. Since with the Book of Mormon Skousen has noted most of the places the translation is alluding to or following some Biblical passage this should be easy. (And of course converting “ye” and “thee” could be done with a simple search and replace)

LOL. So funny.

The other issue is how they are used. But that’s not a limit of the device than it is ones study habits. Writing by hand engages more types of memory than merely typing notes. Also the fact you have to do it slower increases comprehension. I don’t think those are in dispute. But again that’s less the devices than the habits we bring to how we use them.

Even you note the difference between reading and studying. But ideally we should be studying. And there I simply think that electronic scriptures offer considerable advantages over traditional scriptures. It’s really how one uses them.

I’d add again that I think for pure reading the bigger problem is less paper vs. screen than it is verse versus paragraph. That is the current format of LDS scriptures encourages an unhelpful way of reading scripture.

Your point is good though. People don’t necessarily use electronic devices the way they do paper. As that SciAm article notes there’s always the temptation to check social media while reading.

So very true.
As a former pro translator the economic incentives to maximize turn around
at the minimal expense of time and learning were pretty intense. Some of
that could be attributed to the piecemeal nature of the market but certainly
much of it to technology and tools (I guess the two are probably intertwined,
piecemeal market being abetted by the technological change).