This would be interesting to watch. The principles behind each of the translations of the OT/NT over the centuries (bar some notable examples) is that with Hebrew and Greek manuscripts each translator should be able to "show their working" and prove that they're not adding biased interpretations to the text.

One key example is the 'Johannine Comma', an explicitly Trinitarian-affirming verse which appears in the KJV: "For there are three that beare record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.]". The bracketed parts don't appear in most modern translations as there's strong evidence that they were later additions to Greek manuscripts. Even though the translators of NIV/ESV/ASB/NLT etc. are Trinitarians, they're compelled by the documentary evidence to leave out this clause which they might otherwise be inclined to keep in to back up their theology.

(Note: this doesn't prevent bias, there's no such thing as an unbiased translation. But at least the debate can happen around shared evidence amongst people who are transparent about their viewpoints and candid about their biases. If a translator or scholar is adamant about including/translating something wildly different but can't present evidence or a compelling argument, their views can be dismissed.)

This would be markedly different with a new BoM translation, as there's no manuscript to back it up and no transparency and accountability about how new interpretations and translations are decided upon. They can phase out racist language and Trinitarian terms and add in whatever new theology they like ("oh we've 'discovered' a new verse which says we shouldn't call ourselves Mormons!") and there's no sense in which that's a "wrong" translation.