MovieChat Forums > The Best Two Years (2004) Discussion > Books of Mormon

Books of Mormon

posted 19 years ago by drew_graham1
14 replies | jump to latest

Okay, besides the fact that I pretty much hated Elder Van Pelt in this film (even annoying characters are supposed to be endearing... He was just an arrogant little jerk with absolutely no depth and no character arc at all), I also wanted to point out a fallacy in his obnoxiously and conceitedly pointed out grammatical correction.

It actually IS Book of Mormons (as opposed to Books of Mormon). Would we say Prides and Prejudice? Would we say Judes the Obscure? Would we say The Pictures of Dorian Gray? No, I don't think so. The Book of Mormon is the title of the book, so the plurality would apply to the end of it. Actually, more correct would be to say copies of the Book of Mormon...

Just wanted to point that out. It really bugged me, but I was glad everyone around him kept calling them Book of Mormons. Still, this movie was pretty poor, so I don't why I cared about it at all! :)

[–] Evil_Will_Hunting 19 years ago

um, no, actually, it SHOULD be books of mormon. because it's a book. and because 'of' is a preposition. 'and' and 'the' are not prepositions. if the picture of dorian gray were an actual picture of dorian gray, then the correct plural would in fact be 'pictures of dorian gray.' if you consider the title 'book of mormon' to mean that it is a book and that it is mormon's, then 'books of mormon' is appropriate. if you consider 'book of mormon' to be a steadfast title, then yes, copies of the book of mormon is correct. but in no case is 'book of mormons' correct.

also, if you are bearing your testimony, or addressing the congregation of a church meeting in any capacity besides a prayer, and you close with "in the name of thy son, jesus christ," you are actually inferring that the congregation is, collectively, god.

[–] jeberhard 19 years ago

that is a pet peeve of mine...no, I dont have a son named Jesus Christ, thank you...

[–] drew_graham1 19 years ago

Hmmmm.... Sorry, I beg to disagree. I think I said it perfectly already, but heck, I'll say it again. The title of the book (yes, it's a steadfast title, gosh, what a dumb thing to say) is "The Book of Mormon", so you would indeed say "Book of Mormons". At least it's more correct than saying Books of Mormon. In no case is "Books of Mormon" correct.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go organize my Thomas Hardy collection. I have a couple different "Judes the Obscure", "Tesses of the D'Urberville", and "Returns of the Native" to put up (oh, and by the way, two of those have 'of' in the title too.... Touche).

[–] jwillis169 19 years ago

Actually, hmm ... I disagree with both of the arguments here (humbly, of course ... no need for righteous indignation here, brethren ;) ), and to borrow from you, would say that "is no case" is *either* "Books Of Mormon" or "Book Of Mormons" correct, but that the third option, which each of you glossed over, "Copies of The Book Of Mormon" is the ONLY correct option, in any sense.

My reasoning here is that each of you are correct in what you find wrong with each other's argument: "The Book of Mormon" is the title of the book, therefore, "Books Of Mormon" would be incorrect, but ... "Book of Mormons" is SO very wrong. This is conducive to the idea that, as "Mormons", this is our book, whereas, as each of us here knows, there is a man in the book/instrumental in the compilation of the book named Mormon. In Spanish, the language of my own mission, many people called the book "El Libro De Los Mormones", which translates to "The Book Of The Mormons", which I think we all will agree is completely wrong. To me, "Book Of Mormons" lends itself to the same idea, in English. To use your own incredibly lame example against you, Brother Graham, if you have duplicates in your collection, Do you have "Picture Of Dorian Grays" or "Jude The Obscures" or "Return Of The Natives" or "Tom Sawyers" or whatever? Rather, I would submit that you have multiple copies of "The Picture Of Dorian Gray" or multiple copies of "Jude The Obscure" ... etc.

Heh ... I agree with each of you that mention testimonies or talks ending "in the name of thy son ...", I cringe every time I hear this. :)

[–] ithryn 19 years ago

amen

[–] Totencough 19 years ago

And now we will have our benediction bye.... jk.
*Cough* amen

[–] drew_graham1 19 years ago

Hm... You say it's a lame example, but it sounds perfectly natural to me. I agree though, that "Copies of" would be the MOST correct (but Book of Mormons is still more correct than Books of Mormon).

Meh, this was a lame movie anyway.

[–] imanactress4life 19 years ago

Copies of the Book of Mormon is the only correct name, however I think they were doing it as a joke.

[–] Sydney_Swans 19 years ago

I agree 'Copies of the Book of Mormon' is the only correct option.

[–] maxandadona 19 years ago

The reason why they had this part in the movie was so that we could all laugh. I think it was funny because Van Watsisname was totally wrong.

I agree with the (copies of "The Book of Mormon") beacuse there is only 1 Book of Mormon.

But I do not think calling it books of "Mormon" or Book of Mormon's it is as bad as saying bad words like "ain't".

[–] Evil_Will_Hunting 18 years ago

Allow me to revisit my original response. I would like to take the position that "Books of Mormon," though grammatically correct per se (IF this weren't a book title), incorrectly breaks up the title of the book, and also, just kind of sounds retarded. However, "Book of Mormons" sounds infinitely more retarded. Therefore, I posit the following hierarchy of pluralization:

Copies of the Book of Mormon > Books of Mormon > Book of Mormons

To clarify:

Copies of the Book of Mormon literally means more than one copy of the Book of Mormon.

Books of Mormon literally (but awkwardly) means more than one book (but NOT necessarily the Book of Mormon) owned by some guy named Mormon.

Book of Mormons literally means a book collectively owned by all Mormons in a general sense, but does NOT imply plurality in the quantity of said book. If you were to introduce another copy of this book then you would have to debate all over again about "copies of the Book of Mormons" vs. "Books of Mormons" vs. "Book of Mormonses."

In conclusion, when pluralizing, DON'T MESS WITH THE TITLE. If the title is indeed steadfast, then you can't put an 's' at the end of it any more than you can in the middle.

Or in other words:

Copies of the Book of Mormon = you are a sane and well adjusted person.

Books of Mormon = you have an elitist sense of grammar and in most cases you are probably better than everyone else, but in this case you are WRONG.

Book of Mormons = you are grammatically ignorant and don't think about things before you say them.

P.S. In using the word "retarded," I mean no disrespect to the mentally handicapped. They are in fact far more valuable to society than people that suck at grammar.

[–] Growler_Griz 17 years ago

The Oxford correct form is "copies of the Book of Mormon", but this be an awkward mouthful, so it's usually said "Book of Mormons", which is colloquial, cute, and useful. Van Pelt's correction is thus funny, and very realistic, like almost everything else in the movie - LDS missionaries struggle against all kinds of weird problems, including weird companions. Some of the grammar in the text of the book is similarly odd. The very first verse in the book is an example. That's because the book was written in Nephite, only translated into English, and the translator was no college graduate. He didn't agonize to create perfect English equivalents, he just got the job done. It creates a dialect of English, the mark of connected disciples today.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitrix 16 years ago

Hi tug a bug a boo!

Join the Ron Paul Revolution! Vote Ron Paul 2008!!!