In this special, in-depth episode of Mormonism Magnified, we focus exclusively on the August 2018 announcement regarding the Church’s name guidelines (no more “Mormon” or “LDS”?!) that led to widespread global new coverage. Featuring guest scholars Shelby Lamar and Steve Evans, the podcast walks through the history, reasons, reactions and implications of the announcement.
Hosted by Patrick Mason and Morgan McKeown
MORGAN: So here’s President Russell M. Nelson of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in August 2018:
President Nelson: Last Thursday we released a small statement to the press that we want to be called by the right name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My goodness, it’s caused a big furor.
MORGAN: Indeed, that short announcement about the naming guidelines of the Church created an outbreak of public excitement, generating news headlines and discussion around the globe. Patrick was on vacation with his family at the time, and I felt a little bit bad for him because when something impacting the Church comes out, he’s someone that all the journalists turn to. Patrick, how many news organizations did you end up talking to about this?
PATRICK: Oh geez, I lost track. I can’t even get away for a few days. Yeah, I was actually kind of surprised at how much media attention this got. I heard from AP and Reuters, and the Washington Post, and CNN, and of course the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune, and probably some others that I’m not thinking about. I did radio in Arizona and Ireland and in Utah. So this caught people’s attention across the country and even overseas.
MORGAN: So on today’s episode, we’re going to take a special focus on this one issue: the announcement regarding the name guidelines around the use of terms like Mormon, LDS, and Mormonism. We’re joined by some outstanding scholars who will help us break down some of the interesting history of name usage in the Church…
PATRICK: Joseph Smith refers to himself as Mormon all the time.
STEVE: You have Ezra Taft Benson singing, “I’m a Mormon boy” from the pulpit in General Conference.
MORGAN: …We’ll discuss the media reaction…
SHELBY: I think part of the reason it took off in the media is because it’s funny to hear that the Mormon Newsroom wants you to not use Mormon anymore.
MORGAN: … Why this time may in fact be different…
SHELBY: What makes this announcement so special and new in a kind of historical sense, is that it is couched in language that has previously been used for revelation.
MORGAN: …and some different opinions on what the implications are moving forward, including for the name of this podcast. All this, on a special episode of Mormonism Magnified.
INTRODUCTIONS AND INITIAL THOUGHTS
MORGAN: Thank you for joining us on Episode 3 of Mormonism Magnified, where we discuss the key events relating to the Church, its culture and members. My name is Morgan McKeown, and I’m joined as usual by my co-host Patrick Mason. There’s been some news recently that is worth mentioning: we talked on our last episode about the ongoing protests against the Church’s interview policies, and just in the last few days the leader of that group, Sam Young, was excommunicated. We’ve seen some interesting statements from the Church regarding medicinal marijuana, saying they are supportive of it when prescribed responsively, but showing opposition to a recent Utah initiative that they say goes too far. And the Church released “Saints” a transparent history that we will certainly want to discuss further. But by far the biggest piece of news, at least as far as national and international media attention is concerned, was the announcement by President Nelson and the accompanying style guide regarding the name of the Church. The terms “Mormon” “LDS” and “Mormonism” are all being discouraged. So on this special episode of Mormonism Magnified, we’re going to dive deep in this one issue to better understand the history, context, and implications.
MORGAN: We’re joined today by some excellent scholars. First, Shelby Lamar is a current PhD Student at Claremont Graduate University, and part of the Claremont Mormon Studies program.
SHELBY: My program is the critical comparative scriptures program. And I focus on Mormon Studies and issues of women and LGBT issues in that department.
PATRICK: One of the interesting things about Shelby, is that she was the first non-LDS President of our Mormon Studies Student Association here. So she’s taken a big leadership role intellectually and programmatically, and has just been a really important part of the program.
MORGAN: Being that Shelby is not a member of the Church, but is a scholar focused in that area, we knew she would bring an insightful outside perspective to this issue. Second, we are joined by Steve Evans, an attorney and amateur scholar of Mormonism. Steve is a member of the Church who has extensive experience in this area, and he was one of those alongside Patrick who many of the journalists turned to for expert opinion when this announcement came out.
STEVE: I’ve been involved in the online Mormon social media space for about 15 years, and I helped to start a popular Mormon website called By Common Consent (bycommonconsent.com). And also a non-profit LDS press called BCC Press, that is just getting going.
PATRICK: I think it’s fair to say that what Steve has helped create over at By Common Consent is really one of the most significant developments in Mormon intellectual and cultural life, and in the kinds of conversations that we’ve had over the past decade and a half. So Steve has been right there in the center of really important conversations about contemporary Mormonism. He’s not just observing it, he’s shaping it too.
MORGAN: Thank you Steve and Shelby for joining us. Let’s dive in to the issue at hand. On August 16th, 2018, President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made the following, rather short statement regarding the name of the Church:
The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.
MORGAN: That was accompanied by a Church style guide which includes: please avoid using the abbreviation “LDS” or the nickname “Mormon” as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church,” or “Church of the Latter-day Saints.”
Prior: When referring to Church members, the term “Latter-day Saints” is preferred, though “Mormons” is acceptable.
New: When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Latter-day Saints” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” not be used.
Prior: The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
New: The term “Mormonism” is inaccurate and should not be used. When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ” is accurate and preferred.
Let’s talk about initial reactions to this.
SHELBY: I think “surprise” was the first reaction for most people when they heard about it, and certainly it was for me. Especially after the “I’m a Mormon campaign” and “Meet the Mormons.” With such heavy marketing coming out of the Church, to suddenly have, it might not be a complete reversal, but certainly some kind of reversal. I think that “surprise” has just been the reaction.
STEVE: So the announcement about the proper use of the Church’s name is not exactly a novel announcement, right? It’s already in the Church style guide. It’s been that way since the 1800’s. And there’s been repeated efforts by the Church to assert the proper use of its name over time. So there’s nothing, I don’t think, unique or remarkable about just that announcement. But there were a couple of aspects to the announcement that were unique. First, that it came from the Prophet, outside of General Conference, and sort of unbidden on its own. And second, that it was accompanied by some loaded language with the President’s announcement that it was, “that the Lord has impressed upon his mind the importance of using the proper name of the Church.” So he’s really invoking this language of revelation, this Prophetic authority, behind the announcement. And that is different.
PATRICK: I do think one of the reasons why this one caught people’s attention is because the style guide that was attached to, or that came out as a followup to President Nelson’s statement…. the style guide went further than previous style guides have. For a long time, Church leaders haven’t liked people to use the phrase, “the Mormon Church.” And I think for the most part, a lot of academics and as many journalists as possible have tried to conform to that. But this time it went even further, by asking people to avoid the nickname and abbreviations LDS and Mormon altogether. That’s where it gets really tough, because those have become really handy terms, and shortened usages. I was talking to one journalist who says, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints… not only is it a mouthful, but it’s 47 characters!” She kept saying, “47 characters!” You know, when they have a word count, a character count, they’re looking for ways to refer to things with a kind of shorthand. And in a lot of ways the Church took those options away from them.
HISTORICAL USAGE
MORGAN: Before we get into more specifics there, let’s put some historical context on some of these terms, which date back to the very beginning of the Church in the early 1800’s. The Church actually went through a few official names during its earliest history… originally it was the Church of Christ from 1830 to 1834. And then it became the Church of the Latter Day Saints for a few years along with a few other variations, before finally the 1838 revelation to Joseph Smith now recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 115 solidified the full name of the Church as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And by the way, the hyphen between “latter” and “day” wasn’t standardized until a bit later, around 1851, when Brigham Young was President of the Church. Now originally it was detractors of the Church who first referred to Church members as Mormons, though that’s quickly adopted by the members themselves.
PATRICK: It’s the most obvious point in the world, but it’s important to recognize that the word came of course from the Book of Mormon. So it didn’t initially come from detractors, it came from a new book of scripture that Joseph Smith introduces. And of course, then detractors refer to the Mormonites, or to the people who follow or read the Book of Mormon. But members of the Church, they adopt the name of Mormon really early. Joseph Smith refers to himself as Mormon all the time. And certainly by Nauvoo, it’s rather common usage. And often times they said it with a wink, or today we might put air quotes around it in terms of the way that they were obviously using it. But members of the Church became very comfortable with that term early on. For me, it’s kind of like the term Yankee, which as originally a term of opprobrium, and used by detractors, but it gets co-opted very early on, and now there’s a lot of pride around that name, and it means something culturally. And I think Mormonism has functioned much the same way over the past 200 years.
STEVE: Just to add to what Patrick is saying, I think that by Joseph Smith’s tenure in Nauvoo, people are using the name and they’re fairly comfortable with it, although yes it is used with a wink. But what we see is Brigham Young uses it all the time. Wilford Woodruff uses it all the time. You have Ezra Taft Benson singing, “I’m a Mormon boy” from the pulpit in General Conference.
Ezra Taft Benson “I’m a Mormon boy”
MORGAN: So we see Presidents and leaders of the Church using the term Mormon, and that continued into the more modern era of the Church. Here’s an Apostle of the Church, Elder Marion G. Romney in the late 1970’s with a decent summary of where the leaders stood:
Marion G. Romney: Members of the Church do not resent being referred to as Mormons, nor does the Church resent being referred to as the Mormon church. As we have said, however, it is not the correct name of the Church. Its correct name is, as we have already explained, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”
STEVE: From the 1970’s to the current date is the golden era of Church Public Affairs… Church advertisement, Church marketing… that arm of the Church really takes off. You have the Church embracing television in particular as a form of advertising, as well as major public campaigns by the Church for name recognition as a way of onboarding people into the missionary lessons. And so you have, starting in the 70’s, early 80’s, Church television ads that say, “brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the Mormons.”
Clip: Church Ad “brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the Mormons.”
STEVE: And it’s an enormously successful campaign, and the name association is clearly made in public campaigns from that time forth. Then, in more recent years, you have the Church’s most successful campaign of all time, the “I’m a Mormon campaign.” Launches worldwide, especially in the United States, where you have people talking about what they do day to day, their interests, their hopes, their fears, the things that they love, and then they bring it back in and say, “I’m so and so, I’m a rock star, and I’m a Mormon.”
Clip: Lindsey Stirling, I’m a Mormon
STEVE: And that’s the tagline, and they just run with it. And it’s done by an outside campaign firm. And it is enormously successful. And it continues to be. And so you have Mormon branding across all Church media sites: Mormon Channel. Mormon.org. Mormon Newsroom.
MORGAN: And there seemed to be a fairly consistent theme from leaders across the decades: the preference is that the Church be referred to as the full name, but for the most part it seemed perfectly fine for the members to be referred to as Mormons.
STEVE: What you find, though, is that the occasional Church leader really gets upset about it, fixates on it. That feels like, “why are they calling us this? It’s not our name!” You’ve got D&C 115 that says this is the name of the Church. We’re not going to go with Mormon. That’s a slur on us.
MORGAN: One of those occurrences happened in April 2011, just a few months after the I’m a Mormon campaign had started, when Elder Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, came down hard against using the term “Mormon” in General Conference:
Obedient to revelation, we call ourselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rather than the Mormon Church. It is one thing for others to refer to the Church as the Mormon Church or to us as Mormons; it is quite another for us to do so….When referring to Church members, we suggest ‘members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.’ As a shortened reference, ‘Latter-day Saints’ is preferred.”
MORGAN: However, it took only took 6 months until the next General Conference in October 2011 before there was a clarification by Elder M.
Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve:
M. Russell Ballard: While Mormon is not the full and correct name of the Church, and even though it was originally given by our detractors during our early years of persecution, it has become an acceptable nickname when applied to members rather than the institution. We do not need to stop using the name Mormon when appropriate, but we should continue to give emphasis to the full and correct name of the Church itself. In other words, we should avoid and discourage the term “Mormon Church.”
MORGAN: So “Mormon,” when referring to the people and not the Church was back in. And right away, the I’m a Mormon Campaign was back in full gear.
Clip: Brandon Flowers, I’m a Mormon
PATRICK: So much investment in reclaiming and rehabilitating the name Mormon, which does carry negative connotations in many places too. Especially among Evangelicals and other theological opponents who have seen it as a useful shorthand for a theology they didn’t like. And we know this from polling data, that the word Mormon, at least in the United States, draws very mixed reactions in terms of a one word association. As of a few years ago, basically when Mitt Romney was running for President, still the #1 association with the term Mormon was “polygamy.” “Cult” was very high. But so were “family” and “family values.” And things like this. So the Church has always been fighting an uphill battle on this because of the theological battle that it’s fought with other people. But I don’t think we can say anything but that the Church has made enormous headway. And these marketing campaigns have been very successful. When they chose a nationwide film release it was, “Meet the Mormons.” Recognizing that, and President Hinckley said something very similar, that the testament or the symbol of our faith is the lives of our members. And so, the kind of institutional and ecclesiastical apparatus – that all matters, and the missionaries are going to teach their lessons and so forth. But the Mormons. The people. In some ways, that the best thing the Church has going for it.
REASONS FOR CHANGE
MORGAN: So given that the Church had been making this long term investment in the term “Mormon,” what might have prompted this change?
PATRICK: I’d wonder if Steve and Shelby feel any different than me, but I honestly can’t figure out where this came from. I don’t see any immediately precipitating factors. Obviously it’s been on President Nelson’s mind for a long time. He spoke about this as an Apostle.
MORGAN: Here’s a clip from 1990 of President Nelson, then an Apostle of the Church speaking in General Conference:
President Nelson: Today I would like to speak about a name. We are all pleased when our names are pronounced and spelled correctly. Sometimes a nickname is used instead of the real name. But a nickname may offend either the one named or the parents who gave the name. The name of which I shall speak is not a personal name, yet the same principles apply. I refer to a name given by the Lord:“Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:4.)… just as we revere His holy name, we likewise revere the name that He decreed for His church.
PATRICK: But I don’t see a particular thing that prompted this. Now, you can’t always predict when revelation is going to come. But I wonder if Steve and Shelby, do you see anything that explains why this happened in August 2018?
SHELBY: No, I don’t see anything that was leading out to it. I was quite surprised and perplexed actually because of all the support that the media campaign had.
STEVE: I don’t think there was any single precipitating event outside of President Nelson ascending to the big chair. I think that this has been on his mind for a long long time. And obviously past efforts at marketing around the name of the Church, he might not have been in charge of those efforts. But now he’s in charge of everything. And so, this may simply be him now recognizing his authority and deciding to use it.
PATRICK: I think you’re right, Steve. It just seems to me that President Nelson is much more comfortable using and invoking the language of revelation in a way that we haven’t quite seen from Presidents of the Church for many years. Either from President Monson, or President Hinckley, or President Hunter of course his tenure was so short. Of course they would speak about inspiration. They would speak in the name of the Lord. But we very rarely if ever heard them say formulate something quite the way that President Nelson has. And he’s done it on more than one occasion now. So I think he feels very comfortable in the skin of being a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
STEVE: If you look at how other Christian or Protestantism churches speak, church leaders would definitely invoke, “the Lord has impressed upon my mind.” That’s fair game, I think. But for Mormons, that means, “Put it in the book.” When the Prophet says, “the Lord has impressed upon my mind,” that’s tantamount to asserting canonical revelation.
SHELBY: I agree that it came across as revelation to the members of the Church that heard it, and definitely scholars as well. And I think that’s part of what makes this announcement so special and new in a kind of historical sense, is that it is couched in language that is previously been used for revelation. And so it has a special calling for those in the Church to obey the language that the press is asked to follow.
MORGAN: What are your thoughts on whether the style guide was included as part of what had been impressed on President Nelson’s mind?
PATRICK: I don’t think it’s entirely clear what the relationship is between the style guide and what President Nelson said or intended. Right? Did he dictate the terms of the style guide? Has he been in meetings where he said, “We really gotta get rid of LDS as well.” Or are those well-meaning interpretations and extensions out of otherwise what is a very brief statement from him? That’s not spelled out. It’s always the question of anything that shows up on Newsroom, especially things that aren’t attributed. To what degree are these dictated by senior leadership of the Church? And to what extent are they the result of the bureaucracy that’s trying to be in harmony with and apply the shorter and more condensed directives that they receive?
STEVE: I think that his declaration is pointed to the Church. I don’t think that he realistically expects outsiders to start using the proper name of the Church. I think it’s internally focused. I don’t think he wants us to consider ourselves Mormons. I think he wants us to consider ourselves members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And style guides notwithstanding, generally speaking, most journalists don’t feel obligated to use the Church’s style guide. And he knows that. But over the Church body, I think that he recognizes he has tremendous influence, and he wants to recognize the way we talk about ourselves. I view the entire focus of this, notwithstanding having changed the style guide and all that stuff, I think the entire focus is internal.
SHELBY: I don’t think that he plans to fight the media to use the style guide. But I do think that in general that the media does try to be respectful of the Church’s style guide as much as possible. Although the style guide as it stands right now does make it rather difficult to follow. So while it is mostly for the Church membership, I do think that he does expect some level of respect from the media and from scholars on use of the Church’s name at least.
PATRICK: I do think there’s a kind of “do what is right let the consequences follow” aspect to this. That President Nelson feels impressed to teach this principle. And how it’s done, I think he feels like that’s not his job. To implement it and worry about all the details and who’s going to use it and how and so forth. I think he feels like his job is to teach a correct principle and then to some degree the people are going to have to govern themselves.
MEDIA REACTION
MORGAN: So let’s talk a little bit about how the media reacted to the announcement.
STEVE: I was surprised that anybody cared. That’s a little snide of me to say. Because Church members themselves, the initial reaction was kind of like an eyeroll. It was kind of like, “we’re going to do this again.” And so when outside media started paying attention, I was like, “Really? Ok, we’ll talk to you.” But we’ve been through this before. So I was actually surprised that this became news at all.
PATRICK: It was so funny, my experience has been similar to yours, Steve. I got all these inquiries from the media. I’ve had tons of colleagues here, who it’s not like we talk about Mormonism all the time around here, but all these colleagues came up to me and were talking to me about this because they had read the stories in the Washington Post, and New York Times, and LA Times, and CNN and places like this. And so they wanted to talk about it. When I went to Church, literally nobody mentioned it. And so, there’s a kind of disconnect here between… I absolutely agree the primary audience for the statement and for what President Nelson is trying to achieve is internal. But the people who took notice the most were people on the outside.
SHELBY: I think that speaks to how well the “Meet the Mormons” campaign and “I’m a Mormon campaign” were, is that people did notice. And in a way, I think part of the reason it took off in the media is because it’s funny to hear that the Mormon Newsroom wants you to not use Mormon anymore.
MORGAN: There did seem to be a fair amount of snark from the press. CNN’s title of its article was “Mormons don’t want you calling them Mormons anymore”, and the Washington Post included many of the humorous reactions on social media, like the Twitter post, “Starts I’m a Mormon Campaign. Releases movie called Meet the Mormons. Hey could you please stop calling us Mormons please?”
STEVE: That’s where I was primarily encountering most of the reaction, and it is pretty funny. And by the way, it’s not just one Meet the Mormons movie, it’s two. We did it again. And this is not long past, it’s what two years ago? The second one? Was it last year, I can’t remember. But it’s really recent. And we just got sort of pilloried by outsiders but also insiders, member of the Church who we don’t really know how to talk about ourselves anymore.
MORGAN: I saw one member of the Church who posted, “I guess we’re all ex-Mormons now.” Let’s talk a little bit about how this might come across to outsiders of the Church: is this good or bad publicity?
PATRICK: All publicity is good publicity, right?
STEVE: I guess we’re going to find out. I don’t know. I don’t think it’s particularly good publicity. But I don’t know that it really matters. I don’t think this was done for the publicity.
SHELBY: I actually see it as negative publicity from someone looking in from the outside. To have such a big marketing campaign, and then to suddenly decide that you’re not going to stand behind it anymore makes the Church in a way look wishy washy. Like it doesn’t have internal consistency. So I think it might be negative publicity. Do you think that we’ll see a campaign for the new name of the Church?
STEVE: Absolutely. I would guarantee you that it is in the works, and that a significant amount of investment has already been outlaid for that.
PATRICK: Right, it’s going to take a concerted campaign over many years to really make a major difference even on the inside. And it could be a ripple effect, if the changes made on the inside and members of the Church continually and consistently refer to themselves the way that President Nelson wants us to, maybe that could have some ripple effects on the way that outsiders use it as well. But it’s going to take a lot of effort. I think the chances are better than not that this does fall by the wayside at some point. Or we just revert back to the way that we’ve been doing it over the past couple of decades.
“LDS” AND OTHER OPTIONS GOING FORWARD
MORGAN: We’ve talked mostly about usage of the word Mormon which goes back all the way to the early days of the Church, but let’s talk briefly about some of the other terminology, like LDS, which has also been discouraged?
PATRICK: I think LDS maybe gets picked up a little later.
STEVE: Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Church originate the LDS acronym? Wasn’t that our thing. My memory’s a little foggy here, but I thought that it was just an attempt to have something just as pithy to use, as abbreviated, as Mormon. And it was closer to the name of the Church, so there was a Church PR effort to use that? Maybe I’m wrong.
PATRICK: I don’t know.
MORGAN: It is a little bit harder to find history on when the LDS acronym originated, though it certainly was being used widely used as a descriptor in the 1900’s, such as in the context of LDS scriptures, LDS Hymns, LDS Hospital, LDS Distribution Center, LDS Institute. The earliest recording I found was President Ezra Taft Benson referring to “LDS authors” in 1972. And of course it’s certainly even more widely adopted now by the Church, with lds.org, LDS Charities, LDS Employment Services, etc. If you look at Google trends, you’ll actually see that “LDS” is more frequently searched than the term “Mormon” for most of the past 15 years in the US at least, though that certainly has a significant regional bias. Even President Nelson used LDS as a descriptor during April 2018’s General Conference. So LDS is going to be another term that will be painful to eradicate from usage among the membership of the Church. Well, let’s talk briefly about the options moving forward.
PATRICK: One of the challenges they have getting out of the gates here is they didn’t give people workable alternatives. So what they suggested for people to use, “The Church of Jesus Christ.” At first blush that seems reasonable enough. But the Church has never really gone by that. And it also seems a little presumptuous, because there’s plenty of other churches who think they have something to do with Jesus Christ. You know, the “restored gospel” or “restored Church”… that’s asking people to use essentially what is an inside theological claim. And to use it descriptively, when in fact it’s a normative claim. So those aren’t great options. So you have to give people something better than Mormon and LDS, and I think it’s going to be very very hard for them to come up with something that’s better, easier, more convenient, and more familiar.
MORGAN: Do you think there is any possibility of a new, shortened name being proposed?
SHELBY: There is precedent in the scriptures for shortening official names. So in 1835 Joseph Smith received revelation about the Melchizedek priesthood. It was originally called the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name, they avoided using it too frequently. So I think it’s interesting that there is precedence in the scripture for shortening official names.
MORGAN: That’s an interesting point, Shelby, and certainly we’ll all be watching closely to see if there are any new abbreviations or shortened names that emerge from Church leadership.
INTERNATIONAL IMPACT
MORGAN: Do you think this has any different implications internationally?
PATRICK: I do think one of the interesting questions is what impact this has internationally. We don’t have as good of polling data, and so this is somewhat more anecdotal. But my sense is that in a lot of places Mormon has negative connotations, whereas the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints means nothing to people, it’s essentially a blank slate. That could be a good thing. Except then as soon as missionaries introduce themselves, then what do they do is hand someone a Book of Mormon. And you’re right back to square one. So I’m not sure that this would really solve much in terms of public image of the Church internationally.
PATRICK: There’s also all kinds of problems with translating the name of the Church. Latter-day Saint is hugely problematic when you translate it into many languages, it ends up sounding like an end-times cult. And so, translation is something is something that has vexed the Church in terms of how to express itself overseas for a very long time.
STEVE: I think that there are some nations where, for example, Europe, where you have this sort of apocalyptic overtone to the name of the Church in various languages. But you go to other countries where the Church is growing rapidly, and the existing name of the Church is what the Church has always gone by. And you’re not going by “Mormon Church.” And the Church is enormously successful under the proper name of the Church. So, I don’t know, maybe that’s factoring into the decision at some level. But it’s clear that for the European Saints, for Saints in North America, Latin America, it’s going to be a little bit weird. But elsewhere it could be fairly seamless versus current practice.
IMPACT ON SCHOLARSHIP
MORGAN: What about implications for the growing field of Mormon studies, or Mormon scholarship. How does this impact that arena?
SHELBY: I think for scholarship, this is actually an important reminder that Mormon doesn’t just mean the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s actually a broader term that covers more than one tradition. And as scholars we need to be careful to make sure we are using correct names and being very specific when we talk about different groups.
PATRICK: That’s a really great point Shelby. And this is actually one of the places where “Mormon” has always been a little bit problematic for scholars, because when you say “Mormon” are you just talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members, which comprise today between 96-98% of all people who would be religious or spiritual descendants of Joseph Smith and the early restoration movement. So in some ways there is a kind of co-equal quality to that. But “Mormon” also means something more than that. And you can use it as an umbrella term to include lots of different groups – other restorationist groups, fundamentalists, ex-Mormons, you know people who have either been excommunicated or disaffiliated from the Church but still retain some kind of cultural or historical or personal ties to it. So it’s one of the reasons why I like “Mormon” because it is capacious. And it allows you to think about some broader trends that are connected to, but also independent of the Church itself.
SHELBY: Exactly. When I talk about the Book of Mormon, I’m not always talking about one group. It’s a book that actually belongs to several different traditions.
PATRICK: I just think that we have to recognize that at least for now, nothing about this is going to move the needle within the academy. Careful scholars already try not to use the term Mormon Church. But in your writing you have to use things like “Mormon,” “Mormonism,” “LDS,” “LDS Church,” and so forth. You can’t use the full name of the Church all the time. And “Restored Church of Jesus Christ” just isn’t going to cut it all the time. So I suspect that academics are going to continue to use the old style guide. A number of journalists that I’ve talked to have said they’re going to do the same thing. And “Mormon studies,” “Mormon history,” these now have history behind them. And universities are not going to take kindly to establishing a chair in “Restored Church of Jesus Christ” studies. So again, “Mormonism” and “Mormon studies” does some work there, even for the Church, that some of these other substitutes simply can’t do.
IMPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH
MORGAN: What are some of the implications for the members of the Church?
PATRICK: One of the fears that a lot of people have is, especially because this statement was worded so strongly by President Nelson, that whether or not somebody complies to it (and here I’m speaking of members of the Church, not outsiders) will become a sort of litmus test, will become an informal sign of how much you follow the Prophet. Are you really serious about following all the Prophet’s words? Well, if you are, then you’ll do whatever it takes to conform to what he says, even if it leads to verbal gymnastics, and if you get tongue-tied and you’re not sure how to do it. But do you give every good effort to follow the Prophet and do what he says. Whereas others might, we’ve talked about eye-rolling, some others might say, “Well, this is going to come and go. I just don’t know how to do it. So I’m just going to keep on doing what I was doing already. I respect what he has to say. I believe in and love the official name of the Church. But I’m going to keep using Mormon and LDS.” And you can imagine how, in interpersonal interactions, how online, how in various places people could use this as a way to test just how strongly, with how much integrity a person does or doesn’t “follow the Prophet.”
SHELBY: I think that kind of testing will depend on the Church itself, and how it’s social media and website and style guide is followed on those. So I think that if the Church is very consistent in following that naming protocol, then I think you could see a litmus test like that. But I think that part of it depends on the media that the Church puts out itself.
STEVE: Thank goodness we finally have a new litmus test. Finally another Shibboleth. I mean, how many of these do we need? We’ve already got so many quirky ways of establishing the bona fides of a member of the Church. I don’t know. If it becomes truly a litmus test it’s about the most stupid litmus test I could possibly imagine. And it’s frustrating to me that (a) this became important enough to the Prophet that we spend what’s going to be millions to turn this supertanker around and (b) that anybody else thinks it’s so significant, and it’s getting so much media play.
PATRICK: Again, I just have to think, and this is pure speculation: that’s not the way that President Nelson is thinking about this. He is the President of the Church. He is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. And if he feels a strong impression that he’s convinced comes from the Lord, his job is to give voice to it.
STEVE: Patrick, absolutely.
PATRICK: Then the rest of us figure it out. Right? And so, why is something important to God? I don’t know, his mind and will is different than ours. So you can imagine the position that the Church leadership is in. President Oaks oftentimes says, “You don’t give reason to revelation.” Right? And so, that gets used in lots of different ways. But we can say, “Who knows?” Who can explain how, why? Is this the most important thing in the world? I don’t know. But this is the thing that 16 million people believe is the Prophet of God thought was important enough to give voice to.
SHELBY: I think it is significant, though, that the language of revelation is being used much more frequently now. So whether or not the particular issue is important, I think it is an interesting shift in seeing that the language of revelation is being used more often.
STEVE: I think that’s it’s not ahistorical. Look at how Joseph Smith got revelation, and the stuff that he got revelation over. So I don’t think it is outside of practice for a Prophet, a leader of the Church, to feel inspired with respect to even minor things.
PATRICK: And I think it’s up to the membership of the Church, which I think does have a kind of collective authority on these matters to decide how important it is as part of their overall part of their practice of what it means to be a member of the Church.
STEVE: By common consent, as it were.
PATRICK: Somebody ought to start a blog.
PERSONAL IMPACT
MORGAN: To wrap this up, let’s talk about personal impact. Shelby, does this have an impact on you as a scholar?
SHELBY: Honestly, I don’t see it changing anything about how I refer to the Church. I’m already very careful about the terms that I use. I do want to be respectful of the Church and its membership. But at the same time my research has to be readable, and I can’t compromise that. So I don’t think it really changes anything for me personally.
MORGAN: Steve, as a member of the Church and a blogger, does this have an impact on you?
STEVE: Yeah, I think so. I will try to make shifts in my practice about how I talk about my faith to other people. That’s more of an incremental change than anything else. But yeah, as a devout member it does have an impact on me. I believe in name recognition as a means of effective communication. And if I can leverage existing, known, shared knowledge as a way of shorthand to speed conversation, I’m going to do that. Now, I think that’s a bridge to further understanding, and further thoughtful communication about why we use this name. But I don’t have a problem with using the name Mormon as sort of an introductory technique to further real conversation. But I don’t think it has, if I’m going to be a prognosticator, I don’t think it has impact on how the Church is framed in the global picture.
MORGAN: Patrick, as a member of the Church, the Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies at Claremont and the author of the book “What is Mormonism?” how does this impact you?
PATRICK: I’ve told people I won’t be changing my business cards or republishing my books anytime soon. As a scholar, part of my job is to do deep and original research and then make it intelligible to various publics. At this point at least, it’s my judgment that “Mormon” and “LDS” and “Latter-day Saint” are helpful tools in me accomplishing that goal of being intelligible to other people. So for the most part I’ll continue to use those terms respectfully and obviously point people to the full name of the church when appropriate so that people have that information as well. But as a believer and as a member of the Church, I think that the name of the Church matters a lot. And I am very proud to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Each of those words, each of the parts of the name means something to me that I’m proud to associate with. But I’m also proud to be a Mormon. I’m proud to be part of a culture, and a heritage, and a history, and a people that is not co-terminous with the name of the Church. And I’m happy to claim that, and I’m happy to be part of a kind of a larger umbrella group that includes a lot of sisters and brothers who are not a part of the Church proper. So I’m proud of both of those parts of my identity. And I try to be judicious in terms of thinking about when I’m a Mormon, and when I’m a member of the Church. And sometimes that’s the same thing, but sometimes they’re also slightly different. And I think that’s ok, too.
MORGAN: As for me personally, I would mostly just echo much of what’s been said. As a faithful member of the Church, I am impacted by this announcement, and I want to do my best to balance the Prophet’s guidance with the goal of clear communication. Along those lines, Patrick and I are having an ongoing discussion about what to do with the name of this podcast… how do we communicate effectively and achieve our goal of bringing clear scholarship to a broader audience, while still taking careful consideration of the Prophet’s instructions? It’s a challenge we share with many of the Church’s own organizational units. So like many of you, we’ll be watching closely to see what further guidance, clarifications, and examples are given in the coming days.
And that’s going to conclude Episode 3 of Mormonism Magnified. Thank you to our scholars for joining us, and thank you for listening. Please visit us on the web at MormonismMagnified.com, or send us feedback at MormonismMagnified@gmail.com. As a reminder, Mormonism Magnified is not an official production of the Church of Jesus Christ or Latter-day Saints, nor of the Claremont Graduate University. If you find what we do valuable and want to support us, please take the time to give us a 5-star rating and share this podcast with your friends. We’ll see you again next episode.