I was wondering if this has any real meaning anymore. So here are some of my thoughts and questions on the matter.
There are those, call them “Big Tent Mormon” who want the moniker to apply to anyone who has even a slight connection to Mormonism, whether they actual belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or not. They, with their all-inclusive natures, do not want anyone to ‘feel” left out of the so-called Mormon culture, if they so choose to identify with it, either religiously, culturally or lampoonishly.
So the all-inclusive list would include: LDS Church members, past, present and future, any member of a branch from it including Community of Christ, The Only True and Living Church of LDS, Remnant Church, etc; All polygamous off-shoots of the LDS Church including the Warren Jeff’s FLDS and anyone else who may have had any family member or any possible connection with the LDS Church or any-off-shoot branches. Or anyone who wants to be identified as a Mormon, I guess.
All-in-all, I am not sure I care that much if these folks really do want to call themselves Mormon, though one must admit, as Teyve might say, there is no shame in being called a Mormon, there is no real honor either.
On the other hand, the term “Mormon,” which started out as a derogatory term for members of the Church, is now in vogue in Church circles. The LDS Church has had a love-hate relationship with “Mormon” for most of its history. The Prophet Joseph Smith declared that Mormon literally means “more good” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Page 300) and President Hinckley said, “we may not be able to change the nickname, but we make it shine with added luster.” (“Mormon Should Mean “More Good,” Ensign, November 1990). There have been various attempts to jettison the nickname, but nowadays, the church has chosen to embrace it. They even have one of their websites named: Mormon.org.
Which brings me to my next point.
What will “Mormon” mean in the future.
“Oh, you’re a Mormon? I guess you don’t drink coffee or tea?”
“Well, actually, I do. I belong to the so and so group. We don’t follow the WoW.”
“But you guys used to practice polygamy?”
“Actually, we still do.”
“Uh?”
“We believe in ‘Big Tent Mormonism’ because we are an off shoot of the original church founded by Joseph Smith, we’re entitled to call ourselves Mormons.”
So, in the future, being a Mormon will not mean anything in particular since all the different groups as well as former members do not adhere to the same set of principles.
It makes one wonder why this is happening now? With the LDS Church’s “I am a Mormon” campaign in full swing, is it merely a coincidence the “big tent” is being erected? There are many who would like nothing better than to subvert the Church’s efforts to normalize the members of the Church to others. Could it be an organized conspiracy? Not likely. But it is strange that this “movement” is occurring at the same time.
Or is being a Mormon now being equated to being a Jew, separated from the religious sense and applied to the cultural sense. I know many people, who identify as a Jew, in some sense, (I am one of them), but not at all in a religious sense.
So, is that so bad if it happens to Mormon as well?
Wheat & Tares 
IMO, the Church GAs are ‘BIG tent’ thinkers. They are always proud of their large numbers (14+ million).
The ‘I am a Mormon’ campaign, is big tent. You see the same campaign at halftime on TV of every college football game.
50,000 missionaries is big tent.
The shirt should read: “I won’t__that’s the way I am”.
I think the Mormon ‘brand’ will die. I would rather see: “The Church of Good People” and end the idea of being a Mormon.
I see it eventually turning like unto the word ‘Christian’–doesn’t say anything about your belief system specifically only that you like Christ. For ‘Mormon’ it would be something along the lines of believing Joseph Smith had a vision. Nothing more, nothing less.
Which I kinda like now that I think about it.
Jeff, I think you’re on the right track. As long as people can self identify (and what’s stopping them), there’s no ability to control the outcome. That said, the splinter groups (including the former-Mormon, nearly-Mormon, culturally Mormon) are still very small (even if they’re in the news), and their influence is even smaller, except, of course, in places like this.
This seems to be the standard thing that happens with language, the original term is watered down or made to mean the opposite of what it originally meant. Take liberal for example, it used to stand for a belief in being free from government, individual liberty, small government and anti-war (except in defense), now it means the opposite of all those.
I agree, it is nice to keep the original meanings of the terms, but it is difficult to do, like you stated, Mormon used to be a derogatory term, the church turned into lemonade and now some want to turn it into a meaningless term. The evolution of language.
i never understood why they take the time in conference, to give us the pure revelation that…. We’re mormon, wait we’re not mormon. only call us latter day saints, check out the i’m a mormon campaign, go to mormon.org, etc.
Which is it? i propose a moratorium on conference talks that mention how we should identify ourselves.
“now it means the opposite of all those.”
Or when one side has chosen to make it an evil term, a pejorative.
Jeff,
Even Hillary Clinton claims that the word liberal is incorrect when talking about the left, she says they should be called progressives.
Re Jeff-
I don’t know. I guess I have to be honest – I really really hate labels all together. I think for me this goes back to my preference for individuality. I would prefer that we all saw people as individual children of God rather than lumped into groups.
And ultimately, I think this is the problem being pointed out by both you and the “big tent” Mormons. That is, it’s all group dynamics. Some feel left out, some want group purity, some want clear boundaries. No matter how you slice it, it boils down to insiders and outsiders. As a general rule, I don’t care for group dynamics. And ultimately, when I look to Christ, I just don’t see it. I don’t see that Christ established a church, that he required people to “join” his church, or that he kicked people out of his church. In fact, it seems to me his mission was the opposite – breaking down the barriers that defined the group for which he himself was a heretic.
I suppose I don’t feel like another Mormon’s beliefs, actions, or status is a reflection on me. If someone does judge me in that way I think that’s their problem. A little idealistic I know.
Re Paul
But why do we want to control the outcome? What’s the premise behind that? It seems to me that it’s all steeped in the idea of the “natural man.” We know people judge others by their group ties (even we do), and we know that PR image matters. So we pander to that fallen nature citing practicality as our reason. Should we not at least try to be above that?
Jeff,
this is not a recent equation.
That being said, I think that even though it seems like the Big Tent Mormon movement is happening around the same time as the efforts to normalize the church, I think there is something different to them. The “I am a Mormon” movement (and other efforts to normalize the church) are the church’s effort to tell a different story to outsiders. (I have seen some people suggest “I am a Mormon” is more for members than anyone else, but I’m skeptical of that.) However, Big Tent Mormonism is more about telling a different story to ourselves as insiders. In Holly Welker’s Mormon Expression Voices interview, she put it something like…it’s not so much about figuring out her place in the church, but about figuring out herself.
And I think that’s where a lot of the diversity and amorphousness of the idea comes from. Because if you’re trying to figure out “yourself,” then you can change a whole lot over time…but if you’re centering the framework around Mormon ideas, Mormon terminology, etc., then you’re still going to be looking at yourself and your changes and call that “cultural Mormon” or whatever.
Nicely said, including comments.
Andrew S,
Very good points. Frankly, I don’t Holly Welker anything, so….
“then you’re still going to be looking at yourself and your changes and call that “cultural Mormon” or whatever.’
Since I don’t have this link to Mormon culture, whatever that is, I have a hard time understanding why anyone outside of the faith would want to assocaite with it. Because for me, outside of the religion, it doesn’t really interest me that much. Because of its short history, it’s just not that rich.
re 11,
Jeff
I guess for me and many people, the Mormon church was more than a 3-hours on Sunday kind of thing. So it didn’t turn off after church, or on days not Sunday. And I say this even though my parents were converts, so I don’t even have the experience that many other people have of, “xx generation Mormon, pioneer stock, blah blah blah.”
Even if I don’t go to church, don’t participate in young men (or now, elder’s quorum), don’t do anything with boy scouts, don’t do anything with the temple, don’t pay tithing, etc…in other words, if I am “outside of the faith,” that doesn’t mean I can walk away from my own personal history. I have to — at least for myself — make sense of me. Why did I go to church 3 hours every Sunday, seminary every morning, young men/scouts on Wednesday, to the temple on some Saturdays, etc., etc., Why did I not do x, y, and z that most people find completely normal and a part of every day life (e.g., drinking coffee, tea, etc.,)? Why is it that “the church” still continues to refer to a specific church — and most people don’t know what I’m talking about when I say “the church” in a public conversation?
And that’s not even considering the fact that I do have a family that is to varying extents still a part of the church. How do I interact with my father and mother and brothers and sister? How do I make sense of previous interactions with various people which were highly predicated on church membership status?
All of these questions don’t vanish in thin air just because I don’t believe in the truth claims of the church or because I do not participate in church nowadays.
To me, if I were to say, “outside the religion, it doesn’t really interest me that much. Because of its short history, it’s just not that rich,” then that would sound to me like saying that much of my life is just not really interesting and is not that rich. Maybe I have a vested interest, but I’m inclined not to think that is the case 😉
Well, Andrew, It is a matter of degrees. I have spend half my life in the Church and half my life not in the church and my half life is more than your entire life!
So I can see your POV on the influence. OTOH, I also see some of my kids who are not active and they could care less about the Church or the culture.
So, it appears that some can sucessfully divorce themselves.
I think the fact that different people can have different experiences is absolutely ok. One experience doesn’t invalidate the other, nor does it make normative claims on which experience “should” happen.
Re Andrew 12
Really liked this Andrew.
This shift in the meaning of Mormon was bound to happen. (Though lately it seems to be being driven by groups of people rather than just happening on its own…) Almost any church that survives its first few centuries ends up “big tent”. Why shouldn’t that be a good thing in the end?
Is the girl in the blue “I can’t” shirt part of the “I am a Mormon” campaign?
Who’s a Mormon totally depends on what you are trying to accomplish by counting us up. Including everyone even passingly familiar with Mormons is helpful to know if you want to know how many other people don’t know anything about Mormonism (still a shockingly high percentage of the US, to say nothing of the world). The FLDS certainly know who the LDS are. Likewise other schisms.
If you’re trying to ascertain who claims Mormonism, that’s a different one.
If you want to know how many people attend the LDS church, that’s another stat.
If you want to know how many can be counted on to pay tithing, that’s another stat.
It’s when people mix up their purposes that they start talking past each other.
#8 jmb: “But why do we want to control the outcome?” Well, I don’t. But there does seem to be a perception that some do. Personally, that’s not what I got from Elder Ballard’s conference talk, though some did. In the end, individuals will choose for themselves what they call themselves (kinda like many LDS and Christian).
I suppose the whole of the post was to point out that the term “Mormon” has pretty much always had a specific meaning, hence the T-Shirt. As the tent widens, some confusion will reign. In the final analysis, it may only come to mean anyone associated with a religious movement founded by Joseph Smith in 1830.
It will not be reflective of any type of observance. I am not sure the LDS Church will like that, but they are powerless to control it.
Jeff – I think you are right. I also think this is an interesting parallel in all faiths. Eventually they can no longer control their brand.
Bob at #17—she’s just a model selling shirts—there’s a whole line of similarly phrased apparel. They offer a thong that is entertaining if not very tasteful.