It's not what you left out. It's that you selected what you admit were two "random" verses and, without any thought to their context or the audience to whom they were addressed.
Even if you're right that it was an unfortunate example, as far as I can see by multiple random sampling, prolixity and awkwardness are features of the style throughout. Two more random grabs:
Alma 34
11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. [43 words]
No one can choose to die in order to atone for the sins of another. Our law will not punish an innocent person for the crimes of another. [28 words]
12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. [32]
But by our law the punishment for murder is death. Therefore only an infinite atonement can atone for the sins of the world. [23]
[Incidentally, the text contradicts itself as written. The first verse says you can't atone for the sins of another. The second says you can if the atonement is big enough.]
Jacob 5:
34 And the servant said unto his master: Behold, because thou didst graft in the branches of the wild olive tree they have nourished the roots, that they are alive and they have not perished; wherefore thou beholdest that they are yet good.[42]
The servant said to his master, You grafted in the branches of the wild olive tree and they have nourished the roots. The tree has survived, as you can see.[30].
35 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard said unto his servant: The tree profiteth me nothing, and the roots thereof profit me nothing so long as it shall bring forth evil fruit. [36]
The owner of the vineyard replied, Neither the tree nor its roots are of use to me if the fruit is bad. [22]
Total:153/ 103, a saving of close to a third. And I dare to suggest rather clearer.
).
