Books of Mormon or Book of Mormons?

[R3bel]

What is the the plural of Book of Mormon? Not as in if there were more than one book of Mormon (i.e. 1 Ne., 2 Ne...). But as in the actual book that contains all of the other books.

I think that is would be Book of Mormons. Whereas Books of Mormon would be like saying Books of Nephi (i.e. 1 Ne., 2 Ne...). If you get the picture.

[Still_Small_Voice]

The correct plural is "Books of Mormon."

[CrimsonKairos]

Yep. You would be pointing out that there was more than one book, not more than one Mormon. :)

[checkerboy]

Books of Mormon may be correct but in my opinion sounds stupid. I always say Book of Mormons.

But hey I'm just an idiot anyway.

[pushka]

Which book inside the Book Of Mormon has that picture in it!!!

[sweetandsour]

the plural is actually "copies of the book of mormon" if u say books of mormon or book of mormons ur just changing the title of the book and not really making it plural. the man who runs the Distribution Center in SLC (where they make all of the copies) told me this

[WillowTheWhisp]

Grammatically it is Books of Mormon and as President Hinckley used that term himself I'm sticking with it.

[NateHowe]

I'm in the "Copies of the Book of Mormon" camp. This helps avoid confusion - some people think that the Book of Mormon is constantly changing because of our belief in modern revelation. Some people think there are different volumes of the "Book of the Mormons." "Copies of the Book of Mormon" clearly indicates one document with many copies in circulation.

[a-train]

Copies of the Book of Mormon. Yes.

We only have one Book of Mormon from one man named Mormon.

-a-train

[WillowTheWhisp]

I'm in the "Copies of the Book of Mormon" camp. This helps avoid confusion - some people think that the Book of Mormon is constantly changing because of our belief in modern revelation. Some people think there are different volumes of the "Book of the Mormons." "Copies of the Book of Mormon" clearly indicates one document with many copies in circulation.

I can see what you mean about the possible confusion if people thought Mormon had compiled more than one book.

[Canuck Mormon]

Copies of the Book of Mormon. Yes.

We only have one Book of Mormon from one man named Mormon.

-a-train

I agree. That's what I've always said. It sounds silly otherwise, no offense to those that say it otherwise.

[CrimsonKairos]

To each his own. Grammatically, "Books of Mormon" is just as accurate as saying "copies of the Book of Mormon."

Think of it this way. You have a history book on your desk. Someone else drops off two more. You now have three "books of history" on your desk, do you not? You could just as easily say you have three copies of your history book, so its really inconsequential.

What is certain is that it is inaccurate to say, "Book of Mormons," since there is only one Mormon who delivered the plates to his son, and hence to us.

[prisonchaplain]

Sometimes, you have to look outside to find your answer.

There are 27 books in the New Testament. So you can speak of the books of the New Testaments. Likwise, 39 for the Old Testament--the books of the Old Testament. Or, the books of the Bible.

So...it would be the books of the Book of Mormon.

[CrimsonKairos]

That would be true if we were talking about the individual divisions within the Book of Mormon, such as the First Book of Nephi, the Book of Alma, etc.

But when people normally say "Book of Mormon," they mean the complete collection of all those separate "books" in the one volume "Book of Mormon."

In that sense, more than one copy of the complete volume would be "books" of Mormon.

[a-train]

Besides, the original Book of Mormon was only a single book with one author. The only reason we have any other authors in our current copies of the Book of Mormon than Mormon himself is because his son Moroni added to the end of the book, then after Joseph Smith finished his translation of the Book of Mormon, he was allowed to translate the plates of Nephi which had many authors.

So technically, our modern copies of the Book of Mormon contain the Book of Mormon and the plates of Nephi. 1st Nephi and the other books from the plates of Nephi are technically not books of Mormon, they are included in copies of the Book of Mormon.

-a-train

[ztodd]

Our night teachers at the MTC when I was there always said "copies of the Book of Mormon". It was always the first thing they said when class started - "Get out your copies of the Book of Mormon". It always sounded really funny to me for some reason, but I didn't think much of the reasoning behind it. Makes sense though.

Of course, it was a non-issue once I got to the mission field in Georgia, the heart of the South, where they all spoke some weird dialect of Ebonics. Mostly what I heard there was "der go those white boys preachin their book of the normans.. I be prayin for ya chillens.. I be prayin for ya!"

I loved my mission. It was way fun.

[NateHowe]

I recently wrote the following brief article for another use, and I think it's quite pertinent to the discussion:

We constantly argue "Books of Mormon or Book of Mormons?" First, neither is correct, because “The” is a part of the title, and both mentioned collective versions leave it out. However, if for fun we applied the same argued principles to other titles, we would realize that the argument itself is nonsensical and we should say "Copies of The Book of Mormon."

Here is the argument applied to some classic titles:

Catchers in the Rye or Catcher in the Ryes?

Ones Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nests?

Judes the Obscure or Jude the Obscures?

The Turns of the Screw or The Turn of the Screws?

The Pictures of Dorian Gray or The Picture of Dorian Grays?

The Autobiographies of Malcolm X or The Autobiography of Malcolm Xes?

Deaths of a Salesman or Death of a Salesmans?

Madames Bovary or Madame Bovarys? (Or would it be Bovaries?)

The Counts of Monte Cristo or The Count of Monte Cristos?

Alices in Wonderland or Alice in Wonderlands?

Paradises Lost or Paradise Losts?

Atlases Shrugged or Atlas Shruggeds?

Wrinkles in Time or A Wrinkle in Times?

The Suns Also Rise or The Sun Also Riseses?

We, Claudius or I, Claudiuses?

Curious Georges Learn the Alphabet or Curious George Learns the Alphabets?

Dons Quixote or Don Quixotes?

Now can we say “Copies of The Book of Mormon” with confidence?

[Aelswyth]

I recently wrote the following brief article for another use, and I think it's quite pertinent to the discussion:

We constantly argue "Books of Mormon or Book of Mormons?" First, neither is correct, because “The” is a part of the title, and both mentioned collective versions leave it out. However, if for fun we applied the same argued principles to other titles, we would realize that the argument itself is nonsensical and we should say "Copies of The Book of Mormon."

Here is the argument applied to some classic titles:

Catchers in the Rye or Catcher in the Ryes?

Ones Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nests?

Judes the Obscure or Jude the Obscures?

The Turns of the Screw or The Turn of the Screws?

The Pictures of Dorian Gray or The Picture of Dorian Grays?

The Autobiographies of Malcolm X or The Autobiography of Malcolm Xes?

Deaths of a Salesman or Death of a Salesmans?

Madames Bovary or Madame Bovarys? (Or would it be Bovaries?)

The Counts of Monte Cristo or The Count of Monte Cristos?

Alices in Wonderland or Alice in Wonderlands?

Paradises Lost or Paradise Losts?

Atlases Shrugged or Atlas Shruggeds?

Wrinkles in Time or A Wrinkle in Times?

The Suns Also Rise or The Sun Also Riseses?

We, Claudius or I, Claudiuses?

Curious Georges Learn the Alphabet or Curious George Learns the Alphabets?

Dons Quixote or Don Quixotes?

Now can we say “Copies of The Book of Mormon” with confidence?

Well, then, I guess the same should apply to The Holy Bible, also. How many people do you hear arguing over whether "Bibles" is correct or not? None. Because they have better things to worry about. According to your argument it should not be "Bibles" but "copies of The Holy Bible". Sounds a bit goofy to me. I'm not convinced that the same kind of titling conventions apply to scriptures as to regular books. "The Book of Mormon" is more of a descriptive term than an actual title. Just like the name "Holy Bible" means "sacred book", the name "Book of Mormon" is just describing it as a book written/compiled by the prophet Mormon. We use the description of what it is as a title, because as a volume of sacred scripture it HAS no title, just like the Bible. The true equivalent wouldn't be the title, "Alice in Wonderland" but rather the descriptor, "the book of Lewis Carroll".

And also, going back to your list of books, the established convention in the English language is to treat the title as a whole and put the pluralizing "s" on the end, like so:

"Hey, Eddie, how many Curious George Learns the Alphabets do you have over there?" So, if "The Book of Mormon" is indeed a title, the folks who say "Book of Mormons" would be in the right. But, if it is not a title but a descriptor, then the folks who say "Books of Mormon" would be right.

It all comes down to whether you see it as a title or as a descriptor. That's the essence of the disagreement.

[NateHowe]

Perhaps you, like others, take me far more seriously than I take myself.

[Aelswyth]

Perhaps you, like others, take me far more seriously than I take myself.

Sorry, I'm an aspie. Both seriousness and grammatical finickiness are part of my nature. :)