What's new

Plural for BoM

Which is the correct plural for the Book of Mormon?

  • Books of Mormon

    Votes: 10 76.9%
  • Book of Mormons

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • Total voters
    13
Why wasn't it called Books of Mormon in the first place? That's another problem with the first one. It describes one book. Books of Mormon is one Book of Mormon compendium of books, no?

My favorite books of Mormon are definitely Alma and Nephi. That's how I would use the first one.

Technically the word "Bible" is plural.
 
Technically the word "Bible" is plural.

Technically it isn't. In English, the sentence "The Bible are great books" is incorrect. The fact that it comes from Ancient Greek plural biblia, meaning books, is irrelevant as we're not speaking Ancient Greek.
 
Technically it isn't. In English, the sentence "The Bible are great books" is incorrect. The fact that it comes from Ancient Greek plural biblia, meaning books, is irrelevant as we're not speaking Ancient Greek.

Pardon my semantics.

The concept "Bible" is plural, or the original intention and meaning of the borrowed word that "bible" is based on.
 
I think in that case you would say "Statues of Liberty".

I have seen both Statues of Liberty, the one in New York and the one in Vegas.
I think there are 3 originals and that does not include the Vegas one. Basing it off random facts from a movie though so it could be all a movie lie. It was one of the National Treasure movies FWIW.
 
I also have to agree with this one. The title shouldn't change when you make it plural. The title is "The Book of Mormon" therefore adding and S in either spot changes the name of the book.
.
For example if you tried to Plural "The Statue of Liberty" You can't say The Statues of Liberty or The Statue of Liberties. Neither of them make sense. So you would need to plural it with the other words not with the title. So (We have 3 copies of "The Book of Mormon".) makes more sense to me. Or (Could you grab "the Book of Mormon" Books for me?) would be another way to plural it.
.
Disclaimer: I paid little attention in English class in school so all of the above is just my opinion on the topic and could be completely wrong.

I think every country needs their own statue of Liberty. It would be refreshing if they were all different somehow. For example, Russia should choose say a Bear holding a club, with a foot on the neck of a serf. China should choose an Emperor with a dozen eunuch attendants with swords lopping off the heads of slow-witted passersby who didn't get prostrate fast enough as they paraded down the boulevard. Liberty, after all, can stand for the prerogatives of government officials. Our Statue should be remodeled to show a President with mighty Pen, and a retinue of sycophant "news" producers.

real human liberty is a fugitive in our New World Order.

In a world with Statues gone viral, I'd certainly term it Statues of Liberty. And I can't do this bit without citing Ambrose Bierce:

LIBERTY, n. One of Imagination's most precious possessions.
The rising People, hot and out of breath,
Roared around the palace: "Liberty or death!"
"If death will do," the King said, "let me reign;
You'll have, I'm sure, no reason to complain."


Martha Braymance

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htm#link2H_4_0014
 
While admittedly there are millions of Mormons, they don't read the book much. The Bible is more popular with Mormons, they read it more, quote it more, and do all kinds of stuff to convince others they believe in the same things other Christians do.

My experience is that most active LDS know the Bible as well or better than most other Christians, but they know the Book of Mormon better still and read it more frequently than they do the Bible.
 
My experience is that most active LDS know the Bible as well or better than most other Christians, but they know the Book of Mormon better still and read it more frequently than they do the Bible.

I'm actually not a relevant authority on what other people do, or why. I like the Bible better. The Book of Mormon reads like an ideological tract with a view of Christianity that coheres tightly with the New Testament writings of Paul. I sorta get it when the former Pres. Benson would say you can get "closer" to the Lord or to the Spirit of God by reading the Book of Mormon, than any other book. The Bible is not actually coherent and there are huge problems in the consistency and doctrinal departments that has provided ample interpretive latitude for many different doctrinal systems, but it was for sure not written by one man. Well, there was this Catholic with a dispensation from a Pope named Jerome who did the Latin translation from Hebrew and Greek or whatever the sources were. But the historicity of the Bible is palpable. Mormon claims to have re-written the books of earlier inspired writers, but it seems to me that he did not do as good a job as Jerome at retaining the original authors' intents and meanings as faithfully as Jerome did.

But who reads what scripture in the Church fades in relevance the more "living" authorities dismiss "dead" authorities, the more the faith is carved to fit a new agenda.

I've read the Book of Mormon many times, actually. I disagree with some doctrinal points in the book, but Mormon begged us not to reject his work because of his errors. That's the kind of "leader" I like. If anyone knows better, God expects the best we know.
 
I think every country needs their own statue of Liberty. It would be refreshing if they were all different somehow. For example, Russia should choose say a Bear holding a club, with a foot on the neck of a serf. China should choose an Emperor with a dozen eunuch attendants with swords lopping off the heads of slow-witted passersby who didn't get prostrate fast enough as they paraded down the boulevard. Liberty, after all, can stand for the prerogatives of government officials. Our Statue should be remodeled to show a President with mighty Pen, and a retinue of sycophant "news" producers.

real human liberty is a fugitive in our New World Order.

In a world with Statues gone viral, I'd certainly term it Statues of Liberty. And I can't do this bit without citing Ambrose Bierce:



https://www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htm#link2H_4_0014

Russian
July16_6174.jpg

Chinese
391px-Spring_Temple_Buddha_picturing_Vairocana%2C_in_Lushan_County%2C_Henan%2C_China.png

Size comparison
250px-Height_comparison_of_notable_statues_%28vector%29.svg.png
 
I would never say "Book of Mormons" myself. I'd either say "Books of Mormon" or "Copies of the Book of Mormon".

This is a weird thread for me. I have lived here for 10 years and have never heard anything but Book of Mormon.
To me;
Books - sounds like pick which one you like, that works for you.
Mormons - really? That sounds dumb.
Copies - here we go..
 
I also have to agree with this one. The title shouldn't change when you make it plural. The title is "The Book of Mormon" therefore adding and S in either spot changes the name of the book.
.
For example if you tried to Plural "The Statue of Liberty" You can't say The Statues of Liberty or The Statue of Liberties. Neither of them make sense. So you would need to plural it with the other words not with the title. So (We have 3 copies of "The Book of Mormon".) makes more sense to me. Or (Could you grab "the Book of Mormon" Books for me?) would be another way to plural it.
.
Disclaimer: I paid little attention in English class in school so all of the above is just my opinion on the topic and could be completely wrong.

Ding dong. Loggrad98 is being purpousefull. Correct terminology for 1 copy is Books of Mormon. Correct for more than one is books of mormons. He is being silly goose not including in poll.
 
Back
Top