This is a guest post from Tyler Scott.
After President Nelson’s press release indicating that it is no longer appropriate to use the word Mormon in reference to the church or it’s members I have found myself increasingly upset by what this announcement represents. The following is my attempt to articulate why this change, which may seem minor on it’s surface, has proven to trouble me a great deal.
1. People calling us Mormons is not a bad thing and is probably a good thing.
“Hey Tyler I hear you are Mormon”
“Yeah, that’s right, I’ve grown up in the church my whole life”
“Cool, I had some Mormon neighbors in graduate school. They were really nice. If you don’t mind me asking, why are use guys called Mormons, is it just because of the book?”
“Yeah, good question, it’s kind of a nickname that has stuck, the name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s a bit of a mouth full so we just roll with the nickname. Mormon was actually a cool guy that lived about 1600 years ago in central America and consolidated the history of the people who lived there into a cliff notes version of their faith promoting stories. What do you know about the Book of Mormon?”
……and we’re off with hopefully a non-awkward but genuine missionary experience. All because we aren’t freaked out about being called Mormon and the actual word Mormon can lead to open discussions about his book and the unique nature of our faith. This is, decidedly, a good thing.
2. Mormon is a good brand. Just go with it.
Some examples include:
“Mormon helping hands” with their attendant T-shirts helps people recognize our service efforts and often makes the local news, this is a hallmark of good branding.
“I’m a Mormon” is a highly relatable PR and missionary campaign that has been well received by Mormons and future-baptized-against-their-dead-bodies-will Mormons.
“Meet the Mormons” was a well done mainstream movie which served to destigmatize and demystify our faith and it’s people.
“The Mormon Tabernacle Choir” is perhaps our best and most well known brand across the world. From their beloved Christmas music, to their incredibly long running weekly broadcast, and their appearances at such world events as the Olympic Games and the swearing in of America’s first autocratic dictator; the Mo Tab is known and beloved across myriad demographics. This is what branding success looks like. Don’t mess with success Russell!
3. We’ve already seen the rebranding movie before. No one liked it.
In short, this has been tried before. Several times. It didn’t work. It’s not going to work this time either.
Why? First, and this one is slightly nuanced but critical to understand so don’t read too quickly…..No. One. Cares.
Second, 99.9% of the uses of the word Mormon aren’t meant as a passive-aggressive dig at our ongoing insecurity that “the world” doesn’t see us a Christian.
It’s just short. It’s easy. It’s convenient.
People tweeting with limited characters and parents at BBQs with crying babies don’t want to summon the internal capacity it takes to write or say “My friend who belongs to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once told me….”. They just want to type or say Mormon.
Russell, my friend, it’s not an insult to be called Mormon, it’s just practical.
4. The logic here is not consistent with our own scripture and doctrine.
Here are the first four verses of section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.
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.
Ok, so which is it?
a. God is super concerned with people repeating the name of Supreme Beings too frequently so he allows and even encourages His institutions to take on the name of a mortal man (preferably with a strange name that starts with M)
b. God is super concerned with people not saying the name of Supreme Beings enough so He tells His prophet to stop letting people call His institutions after the names of “M” men and directs that prophet to make sure people say ‘Jesus Christ’ a LOT more often.
So is it A or is it B? Let’s get clear with our logic and then stick with it.
This point about our own scripture sanctioning the use of a man’s name in place of the Lord’s name also applies to another well know part of the church’s brand; their flagship university.
Mormon, Melchizedek, and Brigham Young all act as place holders for church institutions that could otherwise have the name of deity explicitly stated in their title. If President Nelson sees the need to eliminate the usage of one of these I would submit that abolishing Mormon is the wrong one to focus on.
Mormon has no published history of racism, imperialism, or misogyny and appears to have avoided teaching false doctrine during his time as a prophet. The same cannot be said for Brother Brigham.
If we are going to ask the world to refer to one of our institutions differently lets stop naming our university system after a man who taught the Adam-God doctrine, the blood atonement, and kicked off more than a century of institutionalized racism.
BYU with it’s nationally televised football contract can do more to change the cultural zeitgeist than any church sanctioned style guide. Just think of the impact it would have to hear ESPN announcers start saying, “Welcome to Provo for tonight’s match-up between San Diego State and the University of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Aztecs and Cougars are both off to a great start this season…..”
Let me sum it up the point this way:
‘I hold the Melchizedek priesthood and attend Brigham Young University but don’t you dare call me a Mormon.’
Really? Does that make any sense? I think not.
Sounds like Russell needs to do a little more ponderizing about this before posting his pet topic on mormonnewsroom.org….oops, I mean therestoredchurchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaintsnewsroom.org
5. Rebranding is really a corporate thing. We don’t need any help looking more corporate.
A church that generates 10s of billions of dollars a year in revenue, who is unapologetically engaged in multiple multi-billion dollar commercial mall developments, who owns and operates innumerable for-profit enterprises and does so in the name of building God’s kingdom yet without any transparency about the origin or dispersion of this money, really doesn’t need to try any harder to look like a corporation.
Aren’t prophets usually focused on happiness, and salvation, and stuff of eternal import rather than launching unnecessary rebranding campaigns?
6. Opportunity cost and a gross misallocation of resources
Enacting a solution when there is no problem isn’t just an incomprehensible academic exercise. It costs a lot; a lot of money, a lot of time, and perhaps most importantly, a lot of attention.
How much money will it take to strip and redo all church owned buildings, websites, publications, and offerings of the words Mormon and LDS? How many man-hours? How many meetings, emails, and memos?
Would the God who declares that His work and His glory is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of all men find a different way to allocate those resources given that broader and more impactful goal?
I can think of few Biblically supported places that the kingdom of God is asked to focus their time, money, and attention that have very little to do with what “the world” says or writes in reference to that kingdom.
7. No One Wins
There are generally three categories of Mormons I read about and know of in my life; the disaffected, the rank-and-file, and the pharisaical. Let’s examine how this change is likely to affect each group.
The disaffected — They are pissed. (See items 8–10)
The rank-and-file — They don’t care. They just want a two hour block and to stop hearing talks/lessons about ministering.
The pharisaical — They are given another cudgel with which to beat the rest of us over the head with when we say the “wrong” name of the church or it’s members……Ok, so I was wrong, there is a winner after all.
8. “Never mistake activity for achievement” — John Wooden
It’s a terrible mistake to confuse activity with achievement. Achievement means accomplishing something of importance and value while activity merely means you’ve done… something.
Bustling around making meaningless changes about our name all over our church makes it look like we are busy carrying out the revelation of a modern prophet but it’s totally absent of any substantive achievement or productivity.
9. This is a distraction of Trumpian proportions
Our current church leader seems to be taking a page from our current US political leader. Namely, when faced with multiple crises of your own creation make sure that you routinely make leadershipy looking announcements that don’t address the things your people are really concerned with and that will draw attention away from those crises.
Face increasing evidence of collusion with a foreign power = Announce the formation of Space Force, a totally unnecessary new branch of the military.
Face increasing fallout and criticism of about your ongoing marginalization of women = change the name of home and visiting teaching and make a HUGE deal out of it.
Be confronted with the hate-motivated separation of asylum seeking families and cage their children = Make a meaningless and ultimately embarrassing trip to visit the dictator of a foregin nuclear power (or do it twice)
Be confronted with the hate-motivated subjugation of LGBTQ people = Insist that people call your subjugating organization by a very specific name and make sure to release a style guide for everyone to study.
10. This can’t possibly be what keeps Jesus up at night
Russell, my man, my main prophet man, is this really the most pressing matter facing our world and our church? Is it even in the top 20? Of all the things that ail this world and this church, is this really the thing God has “impressed on your mind”?
The world needs your leadership. The church wants your leadership. But they only want it and need it on things that matter, things that are salient in our world and our culture right now.
Things that impact our happiness, wholeness and the arc of our eternal experience. Things like ecclesiastical abuse, rape culture, victim blaming, systemic sexual shaming of youth, invasive questioning of our kids, and cultural homophobia.
Things like the alarming suicide rates and mental anguish of our gay members, the increasing exodus of millennial members over opaque cover-ups regarding our problematic history, and the insidious sadness and pain caused by our intentional subversion of women within our patriarchal culture. President Nelson, I implore you, please don’t get caught up in “the thick of thin things”.
An alleged prophet who has not had these critical issues impressed on his mind, is distracted from these issues by branding efforts, and/or lacks the moral courage to enact needed reform stands in need of a great deal more than our sustaining vote. He needs our moral outrage. He needs our kind yet pointed critiques.
The fallibility of prophets is a doctrine we believe in. It’s time to take that doctrine seriously. It’s time we start expecting more of our leaders than name changes and style guides. We can do better, we must do better.
Wheat & Tares 
Love it!
Yeah, basically. The particular tone of this latest rebranding attempt is especially troubling to me. It’s not just “Hey, we’d like to be called by a different term”–we’re in opposition to the revealed Will of God if we don’t make a big deal about it. As you said, Tyler, there are indeed winners here, and it’s the ultra-orthodox.
“They don’t care. They just want a two hour block and to stop hearing talks/lessons about ministering.” This made me laugh out loud.And I agree with every point. Thanks!
“The fallibility of prophets is a doctrine we believe in. It’s time to take that doctrine seriously. It’s time we start expecting more of our leaders than name changes and style guides. We can do better, we must do better.”
I had chills run up my spine reading this. And then I wanted to cry.
Until I see the General authorities modify the groups and services that are prefaced by “Mormon” or “LDS” I will continue as I have. I sometimes want to say “Use the full name of the Church OR WHAT ?
Also, section 9 could be listed as Clintonian. He was better at it.
Wow, well said!
If I could upvote this 1000 times I would. This whole name change seems like a little thing that shouldn’t bother me, but it has bothered me in a BIG way for all these reasons. Plus, given President Hinckley’s talk, “Mormon Should Mean ‘More Good’” from 1990, it is apparent that this naming contention was an internal power struggle between Hinckley and Nelson. (Hinckley essentially throws shade at Nelson’s talk from the preceding GC.) What bothers me is the church’s direction isn’t decided by what is right and good, but instead is driven by which leader outlives the others. (Though I don’t think I’d mind if Uchtdorf outlived everyone else and had a long tenure as CEO.)
I think the original posting is unnecessarily combative, but I am sympathetic to the underlying concern. A few years ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claimed exclusive rights to the word, saying only we are Mormons and all others (reorganized and polygamists) are not. Now, we’re abandoning the word? I am not understanding, and am hopeful for more learning.
This article is so well written and the logic is flawless and I agree we need leaders who have the moral courage and energy to face hard situations head on and make lasting and sustainable changes in our culture. But how? How can we demand more of our leaders when doing so lands people in disciplinary councils? How can we demand change when truly good men like Sam Young are ignored by the top leaders and the rank and file are taught to fear such “disssenters”? I really feel like we need a Jesus character to enter the scene and bring down the power of this misguided organization.
The post nails it! I agree with all points. I think #6 is critical. The church will spend peoples hard earned money on this . Not acceptable.
Spot on!
Amen and even amen.
I say it in the name of Mormon. Amen.
You’re pretty damned presumptuous to imply that you know what keeps Jesus up at nights.
I think the point of the announcement is more to focus the “us” in the Church to remember Him whose name we took upon ourselves at baptism. To me, it seems like a little more emphasis here might produce more Christmas and Easter meetings where the Savior is actually the featured topic, instead of, say, tithing or ministering. I have personally sat thru many meetings where the only time the Savior’s name was mentioned was in the prayers: opening Sacrament, & closing. I think we can do much much better & this is a nudge in that direction.
As to what keeps the Savior up at night, my pay grade is not nearly high enough for those decisions.
Marivene, I agree our meetings need to talk more of Christ, to rejoice more in Christ, etc. I don’t think that getting people to call the church by it’s full name will change sacrament meeting programming. We mimic our general leaders. General Conference, this past Easter Sunday, had a few talks devoted to Christ and a whole lot of talks about non-Eastery things. It was an embarrassment. If general leaders want to encourage more speaking of Christ they should model it better.
Also, if this IS what keeps the Savior up at night, I’m not sure I want to be a part of his movement.
I find it unbelievable that this is such a source of outrage and incredulity. We will always be Mormons and LDS to the outside world, but it doesn’t seem at all a stretch that a prophet could be inspired that we use our official name as much as possible. We’re a drop in the ocean, worldwide, and it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to think we might be accepted better if we’re associated with Christ more than a somewhat sinister-sounding “Mormon”. But rise up in righteous and logical indignation about this if you must — I’m sure you’re improving not only the church but the very world with your efforts.
Martin – Righteous indignation is probably the right term, though I figure you are only being facetious.
Why has the church lost its bearing on the concept of prophetic fallibility? Why have we allowed “fait accompli” to replace “common consent”? What even happened to “these 15 men wrestle with the issue, trying to see all the ramifications of various courses of action, and they diligently seek to hear the voice of the Lord”?
The doctrine of common consent is part of our modern day scriptures – it is doctrinally acceptable for members to voice their opinion on proposed changes. I believe the doctrine was meant to go hand in hand with the process of modern revelation but somehow we’ve let it atrophy.
Over my lifetime, I’ve seen prophetic counsel that was wrong (prolonging racist and sexist policies are two that immediately come to mind). I think better implementation of common consent as part of the church’s revelation process would have helped to avoid past problems of hanging onto flawed policies driven by one person. I think that’s why the Lord revealed it in the Doctrine and Covenants. We need to make use of it and help members be comfortable exercising their responsibility.
Great post! On your number 10, your list of things that probably keep the Savior up at night includes a laundry list of issues that the church is currently grappling with (or avoiding in most cases). I agree that these are all important issues.
However, I also want to point out that a prophet for the whole world in this day and age should, I presume, also occasionally speak with Moral Authority to issues that shape the world. Their guidance can be a valuable nudge to help create positive social change even outside of the organized church. For example, what about speaking to issues of climate change, the rise of autocratic regimes not only in the US but many democratic countries, the rise of artificial intelligence and technological change, increasing numbers of mass shootings, or societal factionalism? Pope Francis has done some of this, with his Climate Change Encyclical and the like. The Dalai Lama speaks out as a Moral Authority on a variety of topics from human rights to nuclear weapons. President Nelson could also do so, but more often than not, the Church President typically stays out of such issues–presumably to maintain an air of neutrality.
Yet, staying silent on big issues for too long, or speaking with Moral Authority on small issues (like “Mormon”) really causes many (including me) to question what Moral Authority the prophet actually has and for whom.
“The pharisaical — They are given another cudgel with which to beat the rest of us over the head with when we say the “wrong” name of the church or it’s members……Ok, so I was wrong, there is a winner after all.”
OMG, So spot on!!!! This is 100% correct. I’ve started seeing it already.
Harry B’s comment brings to mind something I’ve been thinking about, which is this: to me, when a person is giving a calling, like a bishop, a Sunday school teacher, even a general authority or prophet, by virtue of that calling, that person has a degree(s)of priesthood authority. So, simply because of a calling, priesthood authority is given (except to women….). Moral authority, conversely, is earned – or lost – by words and actions. Ideally, a person would have both priesthood and moral authority, but in reality, those two combinations are too often lacking. Sadly, without both priesthood and moral authority, the credibility of each can be diminished.
*simply because of a calling, priesthood authority is given (except to women….)*
That’s not what Elder Oaks said. He said
See https://wheatandtares.org/2014/04/06/elder-dallin-h-oaks-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood/
I will note that Jonathan Stapley called Oaks talk “groundbreaking.” See https://wheatandtares.org/2018/06/18/the-mormon-priestess-oaks-ordain-women-alternative-medicine/
Harry B: “For example, what about speaking to issues of climate change…?” Don’t be silly. How else is the earth going to burn at the Lord’s coming?
To the author, I actually agree that addressing President Nelson as “Russell” seems needlessly flippant. “Russell M, even President Nelson” is surely preferred by the style guide.
There is no misunderstanding as to who/what the Catholic, Methodist, Evangelical or most other churches revere and worship, yet they don’t use the name Jesus Christ in the title.
(Perhaps the problem isn’t so much our name but rather the emphasis we place on various things—like the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith etc. rather than Jesus).
I was going to say #8 for the win, (busying ourselves obeying the prophet with activity that’s “totally absent of any substantive achievement or productivity”) but then I read #10, about leadership and succor for the Lord’s lambs, as opposed to corporate rebranding. But you expressed it MUCH better than I did.
And the cudgel thing also made me laugh.
I liked the cudgel remark as well, but hey, let’s be honest. Almost no matter WHAT you do, a Pharisee is going to pick up cudgels. To a hammer, everything is a nail.
As the author of this post I am excited that this topic has engaged a few in our faith community in intelligent and thoughtful conversation. I am very grateful for the positive feedback for my first ever venture into this type of forum.
It was never my hope or expectation that everyone would agree with me and I appreciate those who’s views vary from mine yet contribute to a larger goal of ensuring our institutions are aligning ourselves with Christlike values. Please know that if I didn’t love and value the church I wouldn’t be so troubled by it’s shortcomings nor willing put my name on critiques I think are important for it’s ability to thrive in the future.
While I can’t speak with certainty about what keeps Jesus up at night I think we would agree that His values are well articulated in the scriptural record. Those values of love, inclusion, hope, service, and pastoral care can allow us to reasonably infer that He is likely more concerned with the suicide of a child or the faith crisis of a family above the way modern vernacular may or may not refer to His pastoral institutions. Christ’s need for public recognition isn’t a prevailing theme in my reading of the New Testament or Restoration scripture; love for the rejected, hope for the marginalized, and acceptance of the outcasts are more abiding themes.
I feel obligated by those very same Christlike values to speak out when anyone, in any Christian institution, distracts attention, deflects responsibility, or misdirects resources that could otherwise be used to support those values. In this case Russell Nelson is the one to distract, deflect, and misdirect. That doesn’t mean he isn’t prophet and it doesn’t mean he can’t/won’t do differently in the future.
In this particular case Russell’s* use of his platform missed the mark, at least in the observation of this disciple of Christ. Calling attention to that observation is the most Christlike thing I can think of do. Indignation of the righteous type is precisely what our Savior demonstrated when He observed marginalizing practices or religious ardency in place of moral compassion. Our living doctrine supports that we do the same even if our increasingly pious culture does not.
Thanks again and I hope to get to know more of you in the coming months!
*(I use his name absent of any secular title intentionally as he is a man like me, sons of God that can access divinity at any time, brothers of Christ who strive to model our lives after Him…Russell and I are not so different, and I don’t believe there is any blasphemy in that observation nor do I think Russell would disagree with that assertion. Calling people President or Elder or Captain or Doctor or Whatever can often diminish the value of the messenger who is not so labeled and risks diminishing the message.)
Tyler, your tone undermines your message. This approach is not “Christ-like” nor does it inspire. It will only be received heartily by those already disaffected, which you probably presumed.
I would also offer that there are many members of the Church who do not fit neatly in those three groups to which you have mentally organized your contacts. There is an exciting world awaiting you in the restored Church of Jesus Christ beyond the cynical paradigm that you have created and espoused.
Oh great. More tone-policing. We get enough of that at church. We don’t need more of it here. If you don’t like the tone of the post, and are looking for “inspiration”, go check out Jared’s blog at http://www.ldsaliveinchrist.com. Spew your judgment there. It’s not welcome here. I thought the post was great, and I don’t like you lumping me with the so-called “disaffected.” I am extremely active in the church, go to the temple weekly, and have a strong testimony of the gospel. Take the mote out of your own eye before you spew unrighteous judgment on the author of the post. Tone-police elsewhere. We don’t like your condescending, snotty attitude toward the post author.
The irony in posts like this is the criticism that the “name change” detracts from more important things. As near as I can tell President Nelson made one statement and some church institutions may change their name. Bloggers and editorial writers at the Trib seem to be spending a lot more time on this issue than President Nelson.
Meanwhile to the extent this has affected me, it has caused me to think about how the thing that unites us is Jesus Christ, not the cultural markers and quirks of what we refer to as Mormonism.
“Christ’s need for public recognition isn’t a prevailing theme in my reading of the New Testament or Restoration scripture.” That is, to be frank, an odd reading of scripture. We baptize in the name of Christ at His instruction. He has said that where others are gathered in His name, there will He be also. We pray in the name of Christ. “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” I’ll suggest the entry “Name of the Lord” in the Topical Guide for a more comprehensive list.
Focusing on the name of Christ is precisely the thing that fosters care for others, purity of thought and action, and self improvement. True, this is not an issue worth making a big deal of, but as I noted earlier, it seems that critics of President Nelson’s statement are the ones making a big deal of it. It is a reminder, to me anyway, that the Gospel is not about “Mormon” history or culture, but about Jesus Christ.
Great post!
Here’s 11. After the saints came through persecution and being driven across the continent, they painstakingly made lemonade out of life’s lemons and turned the slur “Mormon” into something positive. They poured all their little hearts into decades of heartwarming commercials, 150+ years of MoTab goodwill, almost 200 years of outreach, etc. Evidently God watched us -encouraged us-helped us cheerfully pull this miraculous jujutsu move on those who mocked us, then woke up one morning and said “silly saints- you were wrong and slothful all along. I told you the right name in Far West one stormy night and have been patiently waiting for you to use precise language. You displeaseth me. Use the correct and paragraph-long name from here on out. Or , you can begin confusing people with the formerly named RLDS church and other Midwest sects by using another nickname the PR department thought up with the word “restored” in it. Even though I said I was annoyed at nicknames and the whole point of this communication is to tell you nicknames miss the mark, just do what the PR Dept says. Amen.”
My head and heart hurt.
BTW, I don’t want to throw shade on President Nelson, but this isn’t the first time his adamant insistence on “revelation” has been a minority voice against other presidents and the body of the church. About 2 years ago, he addressed YSAs in Hawaii and said that the POX was Revelation (with a capital R). He was a Q12 at the time and the FP yanked that statement back insisting it was inspired policy only and not an example for CES curriculum or public flag waving of prophetic “revelation”.
His wife’s doctrinally misguided children’s book was rejected by common consent of the saints, and in the middle of the debacle- he also corrected the work (although not by name) in a GC talk. (Props!)
Now, he has ultimate power. There are no more checks-except God and death.
Three cheers for Tyler Scott!
I too would support any name change in exchange for a two hour block and no more lessons/talks on ministering.
Changing the name of BYU was a great point as well. In addition to what Tyler mentioned about Brother Brigham, we must not forget that he was a world class polygamist, who I think once said something like a higher ranking priesthood holder has the right to take the wife of a lower ranking priesthood holder, or at least should have first choice on potential wives (source?)
in 3rrrrrrd nefi,
they were wondering, arguing about what to call the church.
the lord explicitly said that if it is named after a man then it is not his church.
whoops for us?
gods church can’t be named after a man according to Jesus.
so maybe pres. Nelson is doing something substantial after all.
maybe our church hasn’t been gods church in some way? even a semantic way?