What does that even mean? That's not rhetorical; I really want to know. It's not as though it soothes the mouth as it flows off the tongue.
"Church of Jesus Christ" is straightforward enough, but it's the second preposition that trips me up. Why tack on "of Latter-Day Saints"? I don't think "The Church of Jesus Christ" was trademarked at the time "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" was first coined, was it? Why go overboard?
Is it "of Latter-Day Saints" as opposed to the Jesus of Catholics, or Methodists, or biblical scholars, or even atheists who question whether Jesus was even an actual historical person.
Is this merely a holdover from the good ol' days when church presidents and scholars made it very clear that Mormon Jesus was not Christian Jesus? (However, leaders and members alike are now giving lip service to the notion that "Jesus" in the name proves they are just like other Christians.)
Is it a winking acknowledgement by Rusty that they really do not worship the traditional Jesus? A little word play intended to misdirect anybody who questions what they really believe?
You probably don't speak a language other than English or it would be more apparent then.
This is about the genetive case which English obscures in a sloppy construction. The genetive case is where you modify one noun with another noun. Possesives are a subset of the genitive case. The car's tire. Car modifying tire to show the relationship between the nouns.
Jesus as a possessive is tough to pronounce and sounds like a sneeze. And Joseph seems to have thought elaborate construction sounded more important.
And thats what the ofs do in the church's name. there are three nouns/noun clauses : church Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints
Church, belonging to Jesus Christ (metaphorically) at the time of the the Latter days which is assumed to be now rather than at the time of Christ.
Yes, I have a degree in English, but only understand this grammar because i learned another language.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2019 04:32PM by dogblogger.
dogblogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is about the genetive case which English obscures in a sloppy construction.
Wow! Color me impressed! If I'd had teachers this knowledgeable grammar might not be a black hole to me to this day!!!
I took Spanish every year from 7th through 12th grade. I can equivocally state that I learned more English grammar from Srta. Margetts at Wasatch JHS and Sra. Sorenson at Skyline HS than from all my English teachers.
Being a fan of British-sourced TV productions, I occasionaly encounter a curious disconnect between subject & verb agreement in 'number':
"He were a fine gentleman weren't he ..." speaking of a deceased individual who may or may not have been "fine". (I've unfortunately forgotten other examples ...)
Is this a statement of irony? Is it an obscure variant of subjunctive mood? I don't think this construct is seen in speakers of "BBC English". -----------------------------------------------
To your point about the value of studying 'other' languages: I had little understanding of subjunctive mood (in English) until I studied Latin.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2019 12:00PM by 3X.
It sounds like the subjunctive mood. Or perhaps a regional dialect. Some grammarians/lexicographers differentiate certain counterfactual hypotheticals or plain hypotheticals more finely than i can and argue for different conjugations depending on them.
I'm much more on the side of descriptive grammar than prescriptive grammar generally. But the more you understand the prescriptions, the better you can craft language for your audience. Even if only to finesse the diffucult structures into something more approachable.
I enjoyed Steven Pinker's Sense of Style that discussed all of these things fairly colloquially but also longer than necessary. Worth skimming at a minimum with closer attention on topics of interst as they arise.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2019 04:25PM by dogblogger.
> Being a fan of British-sourced TV productions, I occasionaly encounter a curious disconnect between subject & verb agreement in 'number': > > "He were a fine gentleman weren't he ..."
Some British dialects frequently use "were" instead of "was."
The real irony is that the "of Latter-day Saints" implies that there are other "Church[es] of Jesus Christ" (which is actually true...) just as the "of Jesus Christ" implies that there are other churches.
It's a common use of the "of..." construction, to specify a particular item out of several: Man of La Mancha - that particular man out of many men the continent of North America - that particular continent, one of several the thief of Bagdad... etc, etc.
There are other, differing uses of the construction; to show possession (the owner of this car); relationship (the father of my children), and others.
Missionaries used to teach a discussion that the latter-day-saints was used to distinguish the current church from the one that "even Jesus himself organized." However, post Hinkley and Monson, I can see why this is so very important. It's to distinguish the old church that built markets, townhouses and coliseums with the current one that builds shopping centers, subdivisions and sports arenas.
Mormons love the double-entendre, and hidden irony.
It is very true that they worship a different Christ, even the Christ of ladder-day saints, as opposed to the Christ of the Christians, and especially the Christ of the "Great and Abominable Church." Hugging aside.
Since when have Mormons been concerned with grammar?
(One & only true) Church of the (real) Jesus Christ of the (restored) Latter-day (genuine) Saints, to be differentiated from
the (various & false) "churches" of the (other) "Jesus Christ(s)" worshiped by apostate, lost, misled damned/damnable and otherwise unsaved sinners (not Saints)
As I understood it, the original name was to be the Church Of Latter Day Saints, but this didn't necessarily indicate that the Church was Christian. So "Jesus Christ" got shoehorned in there, resulting in a church name more complex than necessary.
On another note, the English language is full of regional adaptations and additions. I live in an area of North America famous for both amusing accents and archaic words still in use, as well as a curious hybrid of British and American terms. For instance, my father and grandfather always referred to the hood of a car as an "engine bonnet", but the trunk was never the "boot" as it is in the UK. I sit on a "couch", not a "chesterfield" as my grandmother referred to it, but I pronounce "couch" like "coach". Regional accent, but I'll never not say it that way.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2019 05:33PM by wanderingkolobian.