10.7.2018

President Russell M. Nelson’s first year’s tenure at head of the Church has been a – largely welcome – whirlwind of active leadership and energy. Following almost a decade of President Monson’s dementia-impaired term, the needed changes include a world tour, an unprecedented celebration of the lifting of the priesthood ban, updated youth interview policies[1], combining priesthood quorums, modernizing home teaching, and two-hour block church. Peculiar, among the changes, is the attempt to eliminate the word, “Mormon” from our parlance.

We’ve been down this road, before. I remember a talk by Elder Packard from 2011. Periodically, leadership in the church renews the emphasis on the full name of the church, and de-emphasizing our nickname. At other times, we have fully endorsed it with multi-million dollar marketing campaigns and documentaries. (i.e. I’m a Mormon or Meet the Mormons, or even Mormon Helping Hands). We even encourage members to create their own “I’m a Mormon” social media profile. This recent push by President Nelson appears to be the strongest, yet. Over the next while, the church will eliminate the word “Mormon” from any official communication (unless referencing The Book).

When Joseph Smith changed the name of the Church from “The Church of Christ” to “The Church of the Latter-Day Saints” in 1835, many members in Kirtland disagreed and voiced their opinions. In that same historical spirit of discussion, let’s chat about the current emphasis.

Derogatory?

President Nelson notes,

In the early days of the restored Church, terms such as Mormon Church and Mormons10 were often used as epithets—as cruel terms, abusive terms—designed to obliterate God’s hand in restoring the Church of Jesus Christ in these latter days.11

A recent search over the first uses of the terms, Mormons or Mormonite, actually reveal it as a neutral descriptor; short for “Disciples of the Book of Mormon.” Eventually many members of the Church used it to describe themselves in neutral descriptive ways. Some critics eventually used the term as a pejorative, but only after many years of common use. The members of the Church continued to use the term positively. Joseph Smith frequently employed it even through his Nauvoo days.

Priesthood

First, the Lord has previously approved of taking His name out of sacred institutions, and replacing them with a prophet’s. D&C 107:1-4 says,

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

“Mormonism” Already Canonized

In John Taylor’s eulogy of the prophet’s martyrdom, D&C 135:7 records,

Their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth.

Choir

The first institution to undergo a change is the choir, becoming The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Although the Church allows for historical preservation (Mormon Trail), it didn’t consider the century’s old name of the choir to remain. I wonder how replacing the word “Mormon” with “Temple Square” is an improvement. The Choir is now named after architecture and real estate.

Yes, the temple points to God, and the Tabernacle is where we meet to learn of God, but doesn’t the Book of Mormon and the historian prophet do the same? This change indicates that it isn’t so much as introducing the name of Jesus into our institutions, as it is preventing the name of Mormon.

Style Guide

Previously, the style guide emphasized that the official name of the church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”. The media has practiced this. The word Mormon, is understood in the secular world to be a nickname, and not the official name. The new style guide does three new things. It discourages any use of Mormon of LDS, as shortened names, only allowing ambiguous names, such as “the Church” or “The Church of Jesus Christ,” or “The restored Church of Jesus Christ”.

As Jana Reins points out, these broad names are problematic to religiously neutral reporters. It is not their job validate the truth claims of whatever religions they’re writing about. In fact, our first use of “The Restored Church” in General Conference, was only in the 1910’s. With only a stronger usage in the past two decades. We simply don’t own the term from a historic or cultural standing. How can we ask journalists to adopt it?

Gospel vs Culture

Long have members differentiated between “the gospel” vs “the culture”. For a recent example, see one BYU professor’s talk at Education Week posted on Church News[2], “Many Struggles with Faith Are Based on Mormon Culture, Not Doctrine.” Nevertheless, the new style guide equates the two. The word, Mormonism, refers to the “the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle” of members. Now, the culture etc. should be referred to as “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Priority and Revelation

Keep in mind that the media and others already use the full name of the Church. The current emphasis is to discontinue the nickname. Pres. Nelson has employed the gravest of tones over this issue. “If we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he [the Lord] [chooses to be][3] is offended.” He went so far as to say that these nicknames are a “major victory for Satan.” Why would the Lord choose to be offended by a nickname of the Church, but command a nickname for His priesthood?

Although I understand the idea that if we go against Lord’s will, we are inherently following Satan – this stark dichotomy, in this situation, does not allow for nuance in the nature of revelation or the complexity of language.

Joseph Smith’s 1838 appellation revelation came after the failure in Kirtland. Joseph had moved to Far West, and many of the Kirtland saints were following. The name of the church had exhibited some controversy among the Saints. Section 115 can be interpreted as a compromise between the two names of the Church. The Latter-Day Saints, showing their millennial vision, and The Church of Jesus Christ, their restoration roots. God’s revelation on the subject is a short, one sentence. “For thus shall my church be called in the last days.”

As previously noted, the media, members, and the Church itself, all call it by its full name and recognize it as the official name of the Church. President Nelson takes it a step further by preventing a nickname. It ignores the cultural and historical roots of the Church in the American and world histories.

It also narrows the possible interpretation of D&C 115. The Lord never says, “Do not allow for stylistic sobriquet, epithets, or monickers.” Does it follow from God’s positive injunction that He also intended to ignore or steam roll linguistic reality? Nicknames hold a purpose in language. They exist to fill a morphological void. Language is complex and organic. The command to “be called” is straight forward, perhaps not intending to encompass the whole of human speech pattern. It is not a violation to fit the revelation in the context of natural human expression.

The current all-or-nothing “non-negotiable” rhetoric, labeling this very discussion as a “worldly argument,” hampers our ability to “study it out in our mind“. That said, you don’t have to take my word for it. Let us examine President Hinckley’s deft response to Elder Nelson from 1990.

President Hinckley

Thirty eight years, ago, then Elder Nelson gave a talk emphasizing the importance of the full name of the Church. Six months later, President Hinckley responded with a softer tone.

Many of our people are disturbed by the practice of the media, and of many others, …[when they use] the nickname “the Mormon Church.” Nicknames have a way of becoming fixed. I think of the verse concerning a boy and his name: Father calls me William,

Sister calls me Will,

Mother calls me Willie,

But the fellers call me Bill. I suppose that regardless of our efforts, we may never convert the world to general use of the full and correct name of the Church. Because of the shortness of the word Mormon and the ease with which it is spoken and written, they will continue to call us the Mormons, the Mormon Church, and so forth. They could do worse. I am not ashamed of the nickname Mormon. Look, if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name Mormon. And so, when someone asks me about it and what it means, I quietly say—“Mormon means more good.” Hinckley notes that although the English “more good” does not derive etymologically from “Mormon”, it “is a positive attitude based on an interesting perception. And, as we all know, our lives are guided in large measure by our perceptions. Ever since, when I have seen the word Mormon used in the media to describe us—in a newspaper or a magazine or book or whatever—there flashes into my mind his statement, which has become my motto: Mormon means “more good.” We may not be able to change the nickname, but we can make it shine with added luster. It is the name of a man who was a great prophet who struggled to save his nation, and also the name of a book which is a mighty testament of eternal truth, a veritable witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mormon is not a word of disrepute, but that it represents the greatest good – that good which is of God. I testify that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that when people speak of us by the name of this book, they will compliment us, if we will live worthy of the name, remembering that in a very real sense Mormonism must mean that greater good which the Lord Jesus Christ exemplified.

[1] Whether those changes were sufficient or not, is still openly discussed.

[2] Looks like they won’t have to change the name of that legacy publication.

[3] Per Elder Bednar.