So, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m still feeling like a Mormon. The funny thing is, I remember back in the ’80s that there was this push to use the church’s official name, emphasizing Jesus Christ, to help others outside the church see that we weren’t a cult like the Godmakers film claimed. But then, Pres. Benson got into office and immediately went on record singing, “Marmin boy, Marmin boy, yes, I am a Marmin boy.” So that was that. Calling ourselves Mormon was back in style. Satan rejoiced.
But now, the winds have shifted and the word Mormon is out in a big way, literally becoming a marker between those who are orthodox and those who aren’t. But I’m 51 years old. I didn’t have a problem with ditching the word Mormon when I was a teenager, but now . . . well, I’ve been using it for a few decades. I created an “I’m a Mormon” profile. I’ve embraced the term. It’s not that easy to just ditch it, and it’s nearly impossible to convince me that it’s morally wrong. I guess if people can have an identity crisis, so can institutions. To illustrate just how Mormon I am, I immediately looked up identity crisis in the dictionary, as if I was preparing for a talk:
“a period of uncertainty and confusion in which a person’s sense of identity becomes insecure, typically due to a change in their expected aims or role in society.”
So what are the church’s aims or its role in society that it is seeking to change by ditching the name Mormon? The first that comes to mind is not letting outsiders define us. The nickname Mormon originated when outsiders called church members the name of the book of scripture that was unique to them. Church members, for a change, decided not to fight city hall and instead embraced the name. Another aim that is likely at play is the desire to fit in with other branches of Christianity by emphasizing the name of Jesus Christ. Along these lines, there is potentially some literalistic reading of the naming of the church passage in the D&C.
Magritte’s famous surreal painting Ceci n’est pas une pipe exemplifies the problem with images (including names). They aren’t the thing itself. They only point to the thing. They represent it. They shorthand it.
Naming is related to the desire to define oneself in relation to others: as belonging or standing apart. In making this change, we are showing we “belong” to Christianity, and we “stand apart” from churches that don’t prominently display the Savior’s name.
Recently my daughter and I were talking about where she wanted to go to college. She was lukewarm on BYU (my alma mater) because, as she put it, “I don’t want to be a Molly . . . member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” It doesn’t exactly roll right off the tongue, does it? With the retirement of the moniker “Mormon” from the lexicon of the faithful, Mormonism is re-evaluating its identity. What is identity? Is it who we are, who we want to be, who others think we are?
I shared a story in my mission memoir, The Legend of Hermana Plunge, about my first trainee. As a companionship, we had some downtime due to illness, and we often played games when we couldn’t work. From the book:
“She also introduced me to kokology. These are psychological tests, popularized in Japan, that walk you through a scenario, and your answer reveals something about your psyche. One simple test was to name three animals. The first animal represented how you think the world perceives you, the second was how others really see you, and the third was how you really are. My three animals were a chipmunk, a dolphin, and a lobster. I was pretty pleased with my answers. A chipmunk is energetic, cute and friendly. A dolphin is powerful and sleek and intelligent. And a lobster is hard on the outside but soft on the inside, and you can see all the parts because of the exoskeleton.”
Let’s explore these questions with the Church as a whole.
How does the Church perceive itself?
An Owl.[1] It’s large, powerful, wise, all-seeing. The Church sees itself as the one true church of Jesus Christ, restored by modern prophets. It sees itself as authoritative, a living entity under a living God, and the sole proprietor of ordinances that can save humanity. Given this self-image, it’s not hard to see why “Mormon” doesn’t encompass that vision.
How do others see the Church?
A Hummingbird. It’s flitting around so quickly, it’s hard to even see it. Is it even a bird or is it a bug? It’s constantly changing. Hard to pin down. Some Christian sects see the church as a threat (due to proselyting and doctrines they consider heretical). Many larger Christian sects simply don’t see the Church as significant. It’s fairly new to the stage without the gravitas of millenial history or reformation (aka baggage). It’s not well understood or known in society at large, although more well known in the western US than elsewhere. Many outsiders know only negative things about the church: that it’s sexist, racist, homophobic, or that its adherents are hopelessly naive.
How is the Church really?
This one’s harder to pin down. I’m really not sure–I’m probably too close to say. I know for sure it’s not an owl or a hummingbird. Is it an aspen forest? A turtle? A finch? A platypus? A kiwi bird?
What do you think?
Discuss.
[1] These animals are just guesses based on my understanding of the questions in relation to the Church.
Wheat & Tares 
The church is an echidnas.
It’s a little odd.
It’s easily found in specific small areas of the world. If you see it outside of those small areas, you know it was specifically brought there as a growth and breeding program.
Most people don’t know what it is or what to do with it.
It’s been around a long time but still isn’t well known.
None of the other animals want to hang out with it.
It has more defensive assets than one would expect for its size.
It is quick to take a defensive position.
They easily recognize each other.
That is a hard one to answer and not just give a snark answer. I don’t know what animal has a bit too much of a persecution complex, but even saying that seems a bit harsh. I don’t know, but if you force me I will pick a Chihuahua.
Chihuahua Temperament & Personality. They’re loyal companions, filled with vigor, and quite sassy. You can find them in a purse, on a couch, or barking at another companion twenty times their size. They’re one of those dog breeds you either hate or love.
Still thinking on the animal thing.
Not sure if your daughter needs BYU, but BYU prob needs any daughter you raised, lol. My BFFs daughter had roomies turn her in for drinking herbal tea when she had a cold. (BYU-I). She only lasted 1 semester there, came home to decide if she even still wanted to be the M word. She finally decided she loved the true parts, if not always the culture, and is now on a mission.
Last time I checked, an aspen forest isn’t an animal. How about a coral reef? Large and immovable, but fragile and now endangered by a changing environment.
Thought provoking post. However, the “Church” isn’t the origin of this re-naming thing/effort/identity change. It is simply one of Pres. Nelson’s hobby horses–as evidenced by his over-the-top explanation/justification for the action.
IMHO
I was thinking along the same lines as Happy Hubby. My first thought was a Lhasa Apso. Can be beautiful and useful – they are considered intelligent and dependable companions and if well groomed are pretty animals. However, after a year or two combing their impossibly long hair many give up and shave it; most people never want such a high maintenance and expensive dog.
At this point in my life I’m probably in the church for good but two years ago I got a rescue Doberman which I love. He pretty much ignores whatever doesn’t interest him, is relatively low maintenance, can be quite fun, but he commands respect without saying much. I think that’s more what I want in a church.
On Twitter, I’ve seen some of the hardcore, self-appointed “Danites” relish re-purposing the term “Mormon” to “out” perceived “apostates” since they expect the true and faithful to drop the term. They brand progressives and others who will continue to use “Mormon” as an expression of cultural identity as disobedient or unfaithful.
This could backfire for the church as the outside world doesn’t know or care enough to make a distinction. The orthodox may be successfully coerced to shed their own use of the term, but they’ll continue to be seen as “Mormons” by the outside world. Thus, when the outside world looks up “Mormon” the church will have ceded maintenance of the definition to progressive culture. Does the church want only progressive views to define it to the world?
Knowing what it feels like to be a Mormon is right up there with knowing what it feels like to be a man (I have no idea) or a woman (I have no idea) or a dog (I have no idea). I only know what *I* feel and whether you have similar feelings I not only don’t know but cannot think of a way to find out.
Anyway — Somewhat relevant is the church’s failed attempt a few years ago to get a legal trademark on “Mormon”. This story is from 2014.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/church-day-saints-trademark-word-mormon/story?id=23988596
Or this one:
“But an internet prankster was quick on the draw, launching his own website at http://www.mormon-newsroom.org — note the hyphen — with all the trappings of an actual LDS Church announcement, including functioning links and tabs directing users back to the official Mormon Newsroom site and many of the stylistic flourishes of LDS media releases.”
Since anyone on earth can use “Mormon” it isn’t quite the identifier it once was.
New splinters of mormonism are coming into existence. They’ve done that from the beginning but “social media” greatly accelerates the process. Instead of secret handshakes to confirm your bona-fides now it’s going to be SSL certificates and domain names and you must trademark your domain name to keep it. should someone challenge you for it.
I don’t really have an animal to propose. How about Coca-Cola? I’m thinking of that episode 25 years ago when, after a few tests and consumers who seemed to want sweeter drinks, Coke junked the Old Coke recipe and issued a newer and sweeter Coke II. Dumbest move ever. It was a fiasco and Coke drinkers were very upset. In short order, “Coca-Cola Classic” came back with the old formula, and New Coke was discarded.
I think the unintended consequences — as far as I can tell, all of them bad, none of them good — of junking “Mormon” might backfire. This might get quietly reversed a month after Pres. Nelson passes on. Kind of like support for Native American Mormons after Pres. Kimball died and the end of press conferences after Pres. Hinckley died and the way polygamy died after Pres. Taylor died.
I wonder if that’s it — is the change really driven by trademark difficulty?
Two things of note. First, the term Mormon isn’t a problem except to the extent that it distracts from the actual name and purpose of the Church. President Nelson didn’t say that using the term Mormon is a victory for Satan; he said, “To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan.”
The problem is obvious in terms like “Mormon Church.” It’s less obvious in references to individuals, but I believe there’s a lesson to learn there. The way some have used the term, Mormon risks carrying the same confusing double-meaning that Jewish has. That is, recently there’s been a need to clarify whether one is a cultural Mormon or religious Mormon. And if there’s a separate Mormon culture, where does that leave people who have no interest in BYU football, Return With Honor door signs or funeral potatoes? Deemphasizing the term Mormon encourages viewing ourselves and others in terms of discipleship rather than cultural markers. At least that’s what I choose to get out of it.
I’d say a platypus. It’s got some recognizable and distinctive features, but when considered on the whole, it doesn’t quite make sense. Lots of contradictions. A new thing cobbled together out of a bunch of familiar parts.
Thanks for this post. Every animal listed in the comments made me LOL. They were very creative and accurate.
Nicely done, Brother Sky….nicely done. Long, slow, steady clapping….
I don’t worry about it. The only thing that is of concern to me is how God sees it. Does he see it as His church, or one from man’s own imagination. And how does one find that answer. From reading blog posts. From a popularity survey? Or from God?
Glenn
I believe God’s “church” is the collection of human beings who believe in, and worship, the one true God and find their salvation in the grace of Jesus Christ. That being said, God’s church is made up of practicing Mormons, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. etc. etc. The name of the denomination doesn’t matter. Those who accept Christ are his. In summary, focusing on the name of one’s particular denomination misses the mark.
I do not like being called a “Mormon” and never have. OF course, I joined the church during the last time it was discouraged, but also, Mormon is a man’s name, and not mine. I doubt he wants to be called a “Jeff.”
I understand the push not to say something like “Mormon Church,” but beyond that, President Nelson make no sense to me.
After years of “I’m a Mormon” campaign and Meet the Mormons movies, suddenly saying Mormon is somehow bad, discouraged, not accurate, and possibly a major win for Satan?
Seriously, the non-Mormon general public seriously DOES NOT CARE AT ALL if we call ourselves Mormon, Latter-day Saints, or LDS.
The only “major win” for Satan is how pharisaical we have become.
““President Nelson make no sense to me.
After years of “I’m a Mormon” campaign and Meet the Mormons movies, suddenly saying Mormon is somehow bad, discouraged, not accurate, and possibly a major win for Satan?”
(And yet, we don’t admit mistakes—at least when it pertains to things like denying men the Priesthood based on race).
” I created an “I’m a Mormon” profile.”
They’ve pulled them all down. Didn’t even both to rebrand them.
jpv, Don’t know where they’ve been pulled down from, since I never paid attention to such profiles. But googling “I’m a Mormon” will pull up quite a few from the mormon channel (youtube?) and googling the combination of lds.org and “I’m a Mormon” will lead you to some still on the lds.org media site.
What a mess it creates to be doing this on-line tango with “Victory for Satan”!
Until “the orthodoxy” begins to have some Christian substance to back itself up, it can only be a short-term superiority follow by a very near-term silliness. How long can someone take seriously one sipping a Monster drink ridiculing someone holding a Starbucks cup? The pharisaism is already dialed to eleven.
If the Church is the Platypus, who’s the venomous spur? It has to be deadly as well as unexpected (’cause mammals and venom isn’t a thing, really). Also, there’s a joke in there somewhere about marsupial reproduction and primary, but it eludes me (my commenting alias is far too self-aware).
The Church’s name will change after the Second Coming. It’ll be the Church of Jesus Christ or the Church of the First Born. And it will have early day saints and members of all dispensations who have no identity as a “Mormon” because they’re not. They’re members of the Church of Jesus Christ. Period.