I am not sure the emphasis to stop using the word “Mormon” was intended to have the press focus on “Using the term ‘Mormon’ is a victory for Satan.” This topic did cause me to reflect a bit on nicknames. There are certainly derogatory nicknames that are used to intentionally disrespect an individual or a group. There are some nicknames that are actually complements, such as Ronald Reagan being known as, “The Great Communicator. ” There are many nicknames that are neither derogatory nor complementary such as Chicago being known as “the windy city.” It is what it is.
The term, “Mormon” has fit almost all of the above classifications over time and can even change depending on the context. As many have pointed out, “Mormon” was used by many previous prophets of the church from Joseph Smith onward. It is obvious to point out the huge investment in, “Meet the Mormons” or the “I’m a Mormon” campaign. I seems to me that the latter campaign seemed to be successfully attempting reclaiming the word, “Mormon” to be something proud of.
But the word has come that we need to be using Christ’s name more in our labeling and naming. President Nelson couldn’t have made it more clear in his general conference talk.
But this seems to stand in contrast to what we call the upper priesthood. So using “Mormon” nickname offends God, but according to Doctrine and Covenants 107 using the nickname of “Melchizedek” is required for what is actually named, “the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.” This alternate name is “out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too-frequent repetition of his name.” There could be a whole addition post on how this relates to never mentioning our Heavenly Mother’s name or even about her much.
But I can quite figure this out. Why in one case we don’t want to wear out / make common the name of Jesus Christ, but now we are being asked to say it all the time?
Why is it that in one case we are told not to mention the Son of God in one case, but then always use it in another case?
Images from Wikimedia Commons
I’m sure that most of our members have used a derivative Church name not out of fear or embarrassment; and certainly not to give a victory to Satan. It’s just a response to the individual circumstance; like telling someone who’s (shudder!) not familiar with The Beatles “you know, The Fab Four, The Mop-Tops, the guys who sang “I want to Hold Your Hand”.
After a century or more of reclaiming, refurbishing, and upgrading the name “Mormon,” the new initiative starts by essentially recasting it as a bad name, an insult to us and to God. That doesn’t seem like a move that is grounded in reality. There are certainly some folks out there in the world who don’t like us (no matter what we’re called) but I don’t recall seeing the term “Mormon” being used as an insult or sneer lately. Furthermore, bringing Satan (nickname: Old Scratch) so prominently into the conversation was almost guaranteed to generate media coverage that makes the leader and the decision look a little bit loony.
The reason given for saying “Melchizedek priesthood” doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense nowadays. I can’t think of much that Westerners avoid saying out of reverence. We’re more likely to use titles and add honorifics.
Also, is anyone else worried that bringing this up might saddle us all with the long form of “Melchizedek priesthood”?
I’m glad to see this topic addressed. I don’t have a blog of my own, and when I tried to comment elsewhere about the similarity between the use of the name Melchizedek and the use of the name Mormon, my comment was automatically rejected.
I don’t agree with President Nelson’s strident insistence on the full name of the church, but the tension between the name of the church and the name of the high priesthood existed before his policy change. I
can think of a least one reason why in one instance the use of the Lord’s name is prescribed, and the other proscribed. The official name of the church does serve the function described in the Book of Mormon of demonstrating to whom the church belongs, Jesus, and it is used by both member and non-member. The name of the priesthood is used almost exclusively by members among themselves. It would seem that at first glance this would indicate a reverse position from what the D&C actually gives; the name of the church should proscribe Jesus’ name because it is more likely to be used in derision, and the name of priesthood should prescribe the name because it is more likely to be used with respect. The problem with this is that Jesus specifically wants His priesthood to operate by persuasion, gentleness, long suffering, and using his name to command obedience in His church is actually offensive to Him, so we get the opposite command; His priesthood cannot use His name, and His church does. Of course this would mean that trying to enforce the naming pattern by strident commands, and overwrought claims of offense to God violates the very principle that explains the apparent contradiction, and robs the current president of some of his bluster, so I doubt you will ever hear this explanation in church.
When John Wesley’s religious movement was starting people called them “Methodists” and it was meant to be a pejorative name. It meant that they were to stuck in a system of “works” (similar to criticisms against Mormons). Wesley liked the name and he owned it. It came to be seen as a positive term, in part because Methodists came to be known as devout believers and committed to social welfare, humanitarian work, evangelism to the poor and unchurched, etc.
After listening to Prez Nelson’s Sunday morning statement (we officially get conference here a week later), I’m okay with this. What I find unfortunate is that rather than saying, “You know, we want to refocus the church”, he’s couched it in terms of “revelation”. Maybe it really was revelation (although it seems like a less-important version of that), but announcing that the old nickname is a “victory for Satan” and that it rejects the Atonement is frankly stupid. It means that Nelson wants us to think that everything the church did previously was evil (ie: I’m a Mormon, Meet the Mormons etc). That is just dumb. And inevitably, pro-LDS blogs are breathlessly announcing it like the best thing since sliced bread. One blog even claims the whole church has been “called to repentance”.
Just tell us that you’re refocusing the church’s name. Simple. Tell us that the Lord has impressed this on you. No problems. Using the terms he did seem like overkill and desperation though. “Mormon” now equals a “victory of Satan”? Nelson sounds like a lunatic, and not of the prophetic kind.