Once upon a time (like maybe 7 years ago) the I’m a Mormon ad campaign sprouted a website, Mormon.org. It was full of short narrative profiles of impressively diverse Mormons summarizing their beliefs and proclaiming, “I’m a Mormon.” There were also a few video profiles of people with particularly interesting Mormon stories. That site can no longer be accessed. Did anyone ever produce a profile on the site? Can you still access your profile, or is it gone forever?
Any Mormon.org links now go to the new ComeUntoChrist.org site, where the only Mormon to be found is the Book of Mormon. The tagline of the new site is “Believe, Belong, Become,” which the Church has quietly borrowed from successful use by other churches. And the Church has been promoting the new site on social media. I have seen several ads pop up on Facebook pages just the last few days. Like this one: Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?
You can go explore the home page, which has been around in beta form for several months. Under Believe, there are tabs for following Jesus, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, eternal families, the purpose of life, and coming closer to God. Under Belong, there is a “belong to a caring community” headline, with tabs to worship services and missionaries. Under Become there is a strange mix of tabs that have something to do with service. I’m thinking maybe they could add a Behave page and maybe even a Beware page.
The site presents a softer, kinder approach, downplaying Mormon exceptionalism (and really downplaying Mormon anything) and highlighting Jesus. Lots of Jesus. If the name weren’t already taken, I think the leaders would change our name to something like Community of Christ.
What do you think of the new site? It seems like the new ad outreach target site. LDS.org for members, the Mormon Newsroom for journalists and people who like to read, and now ComeUntoChrist.org for online missionary work or outreach.
For a post discussing an earlier test version of the new site, see this W&T post from October 2018. I don’t have time to do a detailed comparison, but maybe Mary Ann, who wrote the earlier post, will weigh in with a comment sharing what seems to have changed in the final version of the site.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m pretty ambivalent about the whole name change. However, I find it humorous that the artwork representing the middle-eastern/native-american BofM writers in the ‘who wrote the BofM’ really portrays Europeans.
Dave B., I doubt I will bother with the new website, but thanks for “Behave” and Beware”. I appreciate those thoughts! 🙂
A couple initial reactions as I first scrolled through it just now.
First, it is not very clear which church’s site you’re browsing right away. I had to scroll about halfway down to see a small link to order a Book of Mormon, the first clue. At the very bottom of the page is finally the name of the church. Seems almost like they are intentionally obscuring it.
Second, the profile pictures seen as I quickly scrolled down showcase a level of diversity that is not reflective of the actual church, but I still understand the need for the effort. It just seems disingenuous to me for some reason. Perhaps I’m just being petty.
Third, my overall impression was this website showcases the church trying to pretend to be something they are not. Rebranding is one thing but this just seems like they are trying to portray themselves just like other mainstream Christian churches, like they want to be one of the popular cool kids.
I don’t know – maybe I’m just old fashioned or looking for reasons to criticize, but overall my initial reaction was, “this doesn’t seem at all like the church I grew up in.” And maybe that’s the point, but for me, it feels fake.
DoubtingTom, you are not alone. In so many ways, the church is not the church I grew up in either. To give some context to that statement, I am 41 years old and I consider the 90s (left for my mission in ’96) to be “the church I grew up in.” But it isn’t just that the church has changed from 1996 to 2019. I think things in 2019 are significantly different than they were even 10 years ago. I’m not talking about 2-hour church or combining HPG and EQ or missionaries being able to call their families more frequently. I’m talking about deeper changes. It’s hard to pin down exactly what I mean by this, but the church seems to be floundering. I think it is because the word is out about so many of the church’s truth claims. Up until very, very recently, the church had nearly complete control over its own narrative because reliable and scholarly information to the contrary was not readily accessible. Now you can do a quick online search and come up with church-approved material that calls the historical narrative into serious question. The church is trying to reinvent itself; to come up with a new narrative while also retaining those elements of Mormonism (culturally and doctrinally) that are unique. It is a very fine line to walk. For many people, such as myself, the church is failing to successfully accomplish this and those people are finding themselves altering their relationship with the church.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
ReTx, yes I thought the Church had sort of moved away from the old Arnold Friberg depictions of muscular European Nephites, but there it is in the new website.
DoubtingTom, yes, the identity of the Church is certainly not front and center at the site or most of the pages. That’s what happens when you scrub “Mormon” from the site, except for the Book of Mormon. But most megachurches are pretty coy about listing their denominational affiliation. Most people don’t really care about formal denominational affiliations anymore, although that probably holds true only within the broad Protestant camp. They start caring about denominational affiliation for Catholic, Mormon, and JW congregations.
But what’s the Church supposed to do? Put up a warning? “Warning: while we talk about Jesus a lot, and say prayers and sing hymns just like you do, this isn’t a regular Christian site, we’re Mormons!” The whole point of the rebranding is to emphasize that we *are* regular Christians just like everyone else, except that we have apostles and prophets and God’s True Priesthood and lots of young missionaries and temples and baptisms for the dead. I know, that’s kind of a mixed message (“we’re regular Christians, but we’re not just regular Christians”) but that’s what they’re trying to say.
This is my favorite part so far – count how many times they use the word “Mormon” on this page. https://www.comeuntochrist.org/common-questions?lang=eng
Whoever is developing the website is doing the gymnastics of trying to take advantage of search engine optimization while still *technically* obeying President Nelson’s request not to use the nickname.
I followed Mary Ann’s link and found the “Why Don’t Mormons Want to be Called Mormons” line item especially ironic for that particular page. Also, they *really* need to hire a better editor. The comma usage is horrible.
My take: neither hot nor cold but lukewarm. The line, “You can make us a better church,” just doesn’t fit my experience with bringing new converts into the fold. My experience has been that “we” want people who will show up regularly, pay tithing, not need financial assistance, have enough education to lead others, send their kids on missions, and, most importantly, not rock the boat. The Church absolutely is not looking for people who want to change the how things are run at any level.
Sure, there’s a way to read that line as saying “we’re better with you here,” but I don’t think the uninitiated would read it that way.
Holy cow. This statement in the “Who wrote the Bible? “section is highly imprecise if not flat out false.
“The New Testament is a collection of first-person accounts from Jesus’ followers and letters from Paul and other Apostles.”
No serious scholar believes any of the 4 gospels or Acts was written by first hand authors and only some of the epistles can be directed attributed to Paul or other Apostles.
Why is this question even in there. The website seems like it is pandering to the fundamental evangelical crowd. Ew…. no thanks.
JLM: Lie down with Evangelicals, and you might just catch Sola Scriptura!
As Doubting Tom said, it’s not obvious that it is the LDS website. I don’t’ understand why they don’t add the full name of the church in the conventional logo where it has in small size “the church of” and underneat in large size “Jesus Christ” and then “of latter-day saints” under that. They have it at the bottom of the website, but why not at the top. Instead they often just spell it out. It seems that they are looking to change even the name of the church to “come unto Christ”. Seems strange.
I read the Q&A and it seems that this is more than a “rebranding” but a new narrative/church. The way things are answered, the grammatical constructs, the verbiage, etc. just seems very millennial or something. For example, “you might be surprised just how normal we can be!”, although I find that a bit telling and ironic.
1) Of course the claim that the NT is a collection of 1st-person accounts is not true, but where do we draw the line? The OT does not contain actual writings of Moses (especially since he may not have actually existed) as well as other prophets. Never mind the BofAbr. And BofM. At what point do we stick with scholarly consensus vs. the “faithful-narrative”? I suppose until there is enough evidence that pushing false teachings (e.g. 7k yr old earth, flood, Cain=Africans, Indians=Lamanities, etc.) ends up harming more people than it is helping?
2) The emphasis on the WofW regarding tea and coffee seems to be significantly decreased. It says under “what it’s like to be a Mormon” that members “do not smoke, drink alcohol, or gamble”. They conspicuously leave out that we don’t drink tea and coffee, which sets us apart and different much more than smoking and alcohol. Even more strange is they would include gambling, which is not even as close as being as fundamental as tea and coffee. The deemphasis seems to be further underscored in the next question “Can Mormons drink beer” by specifying directly “No illegal drugs. No alcohol. No tobacco.” And then mildly states that the reasons to avoid “other substances like” (think about that wording, “like”?), “coffee or tea” (also notice it says “or” not “and”) are less obvious. The phrase seems to suggest that we avoid many other substances and as an example they give tea and coffee. Why does it say or when we’ve always taught we must refrain from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea. Furthermore, it seems to divorce the connection between tea and coffee as part of the “inspired health code” by including drugs and alcohol as part of that topic as a reason why they are avoided, but stating that it is less obvious why we should avoid tea and coffee. Maybe the church is starting to realize that the more tea and coffee you drink the healthier and longer we live. I predict that the WofW will be changed in the near future (a very welcome change), but I feel this wording is a bit deceiving/misleading as it seeks to re-write the narrative of the church that was ostensibly received via revelation on abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee as part of the inspired health code.
3) Polygamy, they fail to mention we still do this practice eternally. It also seems a bit misleading to say 1) “limited number of church members practiced plural marriage” since in Utah with BY/JT it was required for leadership callings and was very prominent, 2) that it a revelation “in the late 1800s” ended the practice, when late 1800s sounds like it could be in the 70s even, but it was given in 1890, and the practiced continued until 1904 with some accounts even after that.
4) They do use word community a lot (e.g. involvement in, volunteering in, belonging to, etc. a community) , which, as the OP said, makes me think that would have preferred the name “community of Christ”
5) About celebrating Christmas/Easter, there is something kinda snarky in the tone that is a bit derisive towards other Christian groups who the church is trying to be more like. The answer first affirms that yes we do celebrate those holidays (which should be enough) but then sorta disrespectfully says, “if Christ’s birth and resurrection aren’t worth celebrating, what is?”. That just seems to dismissive of other Christians beliefs without recognizing that they have attached special meaning to not celebrating those holidays. Again instead of stopping there, it continues to directly point out that other Christians (the not normal people) don’t celebrate holidays, “but rest assured, we do.” Maybe I am being overly critical but that’s how it reads to me, and how I would read it if I were one of those Christian’s who didn’t celebrate those holidays.
6) On the history of the Mormon Church it says that “the prophet was unlawfully jailed in 1844, but maybe I am wrong but there were quite a few reasons why it was a legal arrest. Wasn’t he charged with treason since he declared martial law and called out the Nauvoo Legion? He also ran to Iowa to avoid arrest.
Overall they had a lot of good things, but just mentioning the ones I initially had some issues with. I imagine that much of the wording will change over time, thus being lost forever, and once again members will say, “the church never said such and such”.
Onandagus: “It says under “what it’s like to be a Mormon” that members “do not smoke, drink alcohol, or gamble”. They conspicuously leave out that we don’t drink tea and coffee, which sets us apart and different much more than smoking and alcohol. Even more strange is they would include gambling, which is not even as close as being as fundamental as tea and coffee.”
Perhaps it’s something more relevant to local culture, but the prohibition against gambling was very strong when I was growing up. Can’t even buy (or sell) raffle tickets, which believe me, really really sets you apart in every school fundraising event going.
One other thought I had is in regards to who is writing the content for this site. My guess is they have a team of young millennials to write most of the content and make it look fresh and inviting and then get signed off by some general authority who is probably over marketing. He probably gives it a quick look over and makes sure there is no false doctrine and then signs off. All conjecture here, but my point is that I am guessing most or all of the content is written not by the “Church” but by some committee of people who have been tasked with making the church look more inviting and have more of a fresh, hip, young look.
It still feels off to me as not particularly reflective of the church I know and grew up in, but I suppose I can’t be too hard on those who were probably given the difficult task of making the church appealing to a younger demographic of potential worshippers.
Putting aside the scholarly evidence regarding NT authorship, the gospels of Mark and Luke don’t even claim to be first-person accounts: they are clearly solely relating testimonies and experiences experienced by others. Nearly all of the other answers to the questions are disingenuous as well (they contain half-truths, and/or give impressions of our church services and practices that are a distortion of reality).
I love your suggested additions of “Behave” and “Beware,” Dave! I have a few more: “Beget”–tells of the importance Mormons place on reproduction. “Belay”–on changes in the Church over time. “Beseech”–how Mormons prepare talks and lessons. And of course, “Beelzebub”–Mormon teachings about Satan.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Ziff, I was hoping someone more creative than I would come up with a few more titles. If their site gets hacked and “Beelzebub” shows up as one of the tabs, I’ll know it was you.
As for content — the prior Mormon.org site probably had a lot more appeal to Millennials: a lot of headshots of a very diverse group of actual people saying actual things they believe or like about the Church. It seems like the new site presents information to someone who says to themselves, “I want to go to a nice friendly church that has apostles and prophets who will tell me not to drink wine or smoke weed …” In other words, it is directed at the kind of people old GAs wish post-Millennials were like instead of actual post-Millennials (people who hate meetings, hate dressing up, embrace diversity and tolerance, and don’t want to be told what not to drink or smoke). Cutting three-hour church to two-hour church and downgrading the November Policy a bit are steps in the right direction, but they are still way behind the game. They are making progress but, given the pace of social change, still losing ground. I imagine there will be a meeting at the COB a year from now where someone asks, “I don’t get it. It’s a great site that says all the right things. Why aren’t they coming unto Christ?”
Unto? Like have you ever heard this word used by anyone in the real world in the 21st century? Why not just ComeToChrist? It takes a lot of work to move beyond deeply ingrained Mormon verbal weirdness, even in a website aimed at a non-member audience.
“Unto? Like have you ever heard this word used by anyone in the real world in the 21st century? Why not just ComeToChrist? ”
Dave, you have it all wrong, we need to dress it up even more to make it the verbal equivalent of the those outmoded horizontal swag pleated curtains someone in SLC loves to use in temples and other places to suggest elegance and refinement on a celestial plane.
I suggest SupernallyEvenVerilyComeUntoChrist.org
KLC, Thanks much, even a lot. Verily, I needed a laugh today.
I read over the site a bit. I am struck with how the church no longer seems interested in boldness. When I was growing up in the church (70’s and 80’s…served mission mid-90’s) it was all about being bold.
OYMs and all that jazz. (Open your mouth,for those who might not know). Jesus was here to save us in the eternities, not just help us have a decent life. Unless you click into the sub-pages on this site, it seems like Jesus is just a really cool life coach who is gonna help you stay on your low-carb diet and guide you through your meditative yoga practice.
Here is a quote from the homepage: “Jesus saved the world so each of us could live more fully, without losing our unique individuality. As we turn to Him, we can grow into the people we were truly meant to be and better serve and love those around us.”
First of all, that first sentence….I have never heard anything like that in the church before. Were we ever at risk of losing our unique individuality? Is this a real fear out there in the English-speaking world, that our unique individuality is being threatened? And is that really what Jesus came to do? Help us live more fully so we don’t lose our identity?
This doesn’t sound like a bold declaration of restored truth. It sounds wimpy, almost as if it is embarrassed about what the church actually believes.
And it came to pass that Dave B said what I wanted to say, but said it better. Verily, “unto” is so 400 centuries ago.
“Behoove” – all the things you should feel guilty about not doing
“Behead” – why you should follow the spirit, even if it tells you to kill a helpless man
“Bequeath” – tithing
“Belittle” – how to make fun of churches even stranger than ours
“betaine” – the history of church owned and run sugar beet farms
ReTx, I definitely agree on the art they unfortunately chose. While the Friberg paintings are extremely popular in Mormon circles, they are somewhat unfortunate as a choice for outreach. Particularly in this era of concern for multiculturalism. There are much better works to get people interested in the Book of Mormon that address what scholars and apologists have noted the Nephites most likely looked like. And Swartzenegger styled Ubermensch Nephites they aren’t.
Hedgehog says Perhaps it’s something more relevant to local culture, but the prohibition against gambling was very strong when I was growing up. Can’t even buy (or sell) raffle tickets, which believe me, really really sets you apart in every school fundraising event going.
I had a stake president recently, who is probably in his late 40s now, who refused to have face cards in his house. “If you do the research,” he assured me when I told him I had never heard that one before, “you’ll understand why not.”
I have since done the research. I still find no clear guidance or commandment from church leaders, no clear rationale, etc. I can only think that his sense of following the prophet, even when the prophet wasn’t actually leading anywhere, is much more finely tuned than mine is. 🙂
“God’s toothpaste” strikes again.
New Iconoclast, I can’t tell you the rationale, but face cards were prohibited in the home I grew up in (50s-60s) as a matter “church policy”. We played with Rook cards instead (all the same games possible!) We were taught that gambling was so wrong the church wouldn’t even let you pay tithing on gambling wins. Maybe I’ll win the lottery and pay taxes, but not tithing! 🙂
Dad might have been embarrassed when I helped him move Grandpa out of his house and came up with several decks of face cards (in addition to the pipe and snaps glasses Grandpa gave me). But then Grandpa’s younger years were also before the WoW crack-down.
Our own Mormon “Even His Name is a Victory For Satan” Heretic wrote about face cards some time ago.
https://wheatandtares.org/2013/08/12/mormon-doctrine-face-cards/
Spoiler alert: Bruce R McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith were opposed to face card because of there association with gambling. Pseudo-canonized in McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine.
I remember having an annual lesson on “Following the Prophet” as a young man. Inevitably, the lesson included a list of things the Prophet had asked us to do: go to church, avoid coffee and tea, keep a journal, and yes, avoid face cards. At the same time, my family played with face cards in a regular basis, but not gambling games.
Also while I was growing up, the lottery was a common topic. There lottery was legalized by popular vote during my teen years. In the months leading up to the vote, church leaders read over the pulpit several letters from the first presidency discussing the evils of gambling. Leaders also talked about how the crime rate and other negative statistics would increase if gambling were allowed. Members were urged to vote against allowing the lottery, and not participate.
When I moved to Utah, I discovered that Utah members had not heard the same letters. My Utah member friends frequently drive to Nevada to gamble, or to Idaho to buy lottery tickets, and no one blinks an eye.
Shrug.
@hedgehog, interestingly, I’m told raffle tickets are technically illegal in Utah. The law prohibits exchanging money for only the chance at a benefit. So you can buy a meal with a raffle ticket, but not a raffle ticket on its own. If this is true, I’m pretty sure not everyone knows it, as I have seen raffles happen.