This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
Journalists have been asking how they can be expected to refer to the church if they have to drop the nickname ‘Mormon?’ Isn’t the church’s real name too long to put in a headline? The solution is actually pretty simple. The church announced: “When a shortened reference is needed, the terms ‘the Church’ or the ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ are encouraged.” That’s it! Solved! Just call us the “Church of Jesus Christ”! Yet journalists have a hard time with this:
“Go ahead. You find an appropriate one-word stand-in for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its people and its principles. It must be clear and universally acceptable. It must tie the Utah-based faith to Christianity and its own history without confusing it with other denominations. Oh, and it must be short, recognizable and straightforward.”
Salt Lake Tribune
- One word that refers to the church, its people, and it’s principles – Most religions have just one word for their name: Buddhist, Christian, Catholic, Sikh, Hindu, etc. But is this true for all churches? No. Three or four words is an unreasonable length.
- Clear and universally acceptable – “Church of Jesus Christ” seems clear to me.
- Tie the faith to Christianity and its own history – How does the word “Mormon” tie the faith to Christianity? Some use the name “Mormon” to disassociate the church with Christianity, not to tie it in. How often do you hear apologists say, “The Church of Jesus Christ is not Christian”? They don’t use the church’s real name. They say “Mormons are not Christian.” That’s because “Mormon” makes it easier to disassociate the church with Christianity. Conversely, they also use “Mormon” to associate the church with polygamous sects
- Without confusing it with other denominations – This is the media’s main complaint about “Church of Jesus Christ.” I guess there are other tiny churches out there with the name “Church of Jesus Christ,” after all. But wait–aren’t there other churches out there which they say fall under the category “Mormon”? So how is it any different? I haven’t seen journalists worry that the church gets confused with the FLDS and other unpopular sects that people label “Mormon”–a confusion which happens all the time. But when it comes to some tiny Bickertonite sect in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, suddenly we must not be confused with them? If journalists are concerned that “Church of Jesus Christ” sounds too much like some typical Christian church, my response is this: why is that a problem for you?
- Short, recognizable, and straightforward – “Church of Jesus Christ” is short enough to fit on a headline. It’s recognizable. Sounds good to me. If you want to shorten it further, “Church of Christ” or “CoC.” Or just identify us as a church out of Utah. People are going to immediately understand which church you are talking about. Journalists complain that “Church of Jesus Christ” is too broad and could refer many other churches, but again, doesn’t the same problem exist with the name “Mormon”? Isn’t “Mormon” a broad word that the media uses to refer to all kinds of sects? So it’s the same problem. “Mormon” is a problem for the same as the reason journalists give for “Church of Jesus Christ.” And the same problem goes for lots of other religions. Many use very broad names. I think the simple solution is to be honest and use each church’s real name.
The Evolution Of ‘Mormon’ Into An Insult
The Salt Lake Tribune continues:
“In fact, before the church’s full, formal name was spelled out in 1838 by founder Joseph Smith, many members called it the “Church of the Latter-day Saints.” But church brass specifically rejected that name for the institution in the style guide that accompanied Nelson’s pronouncement.”
Salt Lake Tribune
False – No, that is not what happened. From the beginning, the church’s name was Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints. In April 1830, Joseph Smith ordained Oliver Cowdery “an elder of the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.'” Skeptics often point to an 1834 volume of the church newspaper Star which calls the church: “The Church of Christ, recently styled the Church of the Latter-day Saints, contumeliously called ‘Mormons.’” But they don’t mention that this record is itself titled “the elders of the church of Christ.” Christ was still in the title, so obviously the church still considered itself the “church of Christ.”
Skeptics also seem to always leave out the last part of that quote: “contumeliously called Mormons.” Contumeliously means “insolently abusive and humiliating.” From the beginning, the church recognized the name “Mormon” to be abusive and humiliating, and that’s why they wanted to “style” it to something else. Thus, the label “Mormon” was from the start used as an insult. Since those days, the church embraced the label and turned it into something positive, but the history of early persecution is still there. Temples were burned, families removed from their homes, thousands raped and murdered, children died of exposure to the cold, and a state-sponsored “extermination order” carried out by men screaming “Mormon.” The Missouri manifesto that led to the government’s “extermination order” read:
“More than a year since, it was ascertained that they had been tampering with our slaves, and endeavoring to sow dissensions and raise seditions amongst them. Of this their “Mormon” leaders were informed… In a late number of the Star, published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free negroes and mulattoes from other states to become “Mormons,” and remove and settle among us.”
from The Secret Constitution
“The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state.”
(Missouri executive order Gov. Lilburn Boggs )
In other words, the mobs were upset that “Mormons” were trying to free their slaves. Soon after this manifesto, Missouri Governor Lilburne Boggs signed an order to exterminate all “Mormons” in the state. He declared: “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state.” Then in 1844, William Law and other Antimormons set up a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor which provoked the murder of Joseph Smith in Carthage jail. It defended Missouri’s genocidal order, declaring that “the Mormons” were “amenable to the laws of the land,” amenable to the widespread killing. The newspaper called for further violence against the “Mormon usurpation.” It was a call for violence which was heeded and led to many deaths.
President Russel M. Nelson recognized: “In the early days of the restored Church, terms such as Mormon Church and Mormons were often used as epithets—as cruel terms, abusive terms—designed to obliterate God’s hand in restoring the Church of Jesus Christ in these latter days.”
Few people in America know about the genocidal extermination because this history is not taught in school. Few know about the history of the label “Mormon” and the intense bigotry and violence associated with it. But I find it incredible that members of the church even need to give a reason for asking journalists to use our real name. It’s our name! People ought to understand that a person has a right to be called by their real name.
Why Do We Need A Nickname
At first, I admit I have had a difficult time trying to refer to the church in my tweets and blog headlines after giving up ‘Mormon.’ How will people know what I’m talking about if I just say “the church,” I thought? After a while, I just gave up trying. Now when I just say “the church,” guess what? It’s fine. People know what I’m talking about. People know what “Church of Jesus Christ” refers to. It’s almost as if that is kinda the point, to get rid of any kind of nickname. Considering how the church fought tooth and nail to take ownership of the label and turn it positive, we all have a hard time relinquishing our beloved nickname, and I think it’s still alright to talk about “Mormon history” or “Mormon culture.” I still plan on talking about “Mormon pioneers” and “Mormon funeral potatoes.” But when it comes to the church and members of the church–specifically how journalists and the media talk about us–it is important to avoid nicknames. And I plan to hold them to it.
It reminds me of when my mission president challenged us to stop using the name “Mormon” in our missionary work. I was surprised to find no noticeable change in people’s reactions. They still knew who we were. They still knew what we were about. And an extra benefit was that investigators didn’t bring presuppositions popularly attached with the label “Mormon.” Less questions about polygamy. The focus could be on how we lead people to Jesus Christ. “Mormon” is a nickname that is unnecessary. It doesn’t help.
Grammatically An Insult – But I still see church members wring their hands trying to come up with a new suitable replacement nickname. Why? Why do they insist on having a nickname? Some journalists try to pass off “Mormon” as a harmless colloquialism, but it is clearly not harmless. When I was a missionary, I knew some missionaries who made up colloquialisms for all sorts of things: “G’s” for garments, “scripts” for scriptures, etc. It was fun, I guess, kinda like calling your father “pops.” But replacing “garment” with “G” seems distasteful to me because it puts down the sacredness of the issue. It’s like calling your father “my old man.” But “Mormon” is an even more severe case, because colloquial names are only used for informal speech while “Mormon” is used just as frequently formally as informally. It carries over to all talk of our church. Also, “Mormon” is not the shortening of a name like ‘garment’ to ‘G.’ The word did not derive from “The Church of Mormon.” And that is the big issue here. The name “Mormon” implies that we are all about Mormon rather than Jesus Christ. The word “Mormon” is not bad, or the connotations associated with it, but the problem is what it means when it is turned into a nickname.
Negative Metonymy – “Mormon” is grammatically what is considered ‘metonymy,’ which means it takes an aspect or example of something as a label for whatever it is associated with. It’s like calling the film industry as a whole “Hollywood” or calling shoes “kicks.” The problem with metonymy is that it is so often used as an epithet. How often have you heard someone use the label “Hollywood” in a positive context? Usually it is a negative label. We often see people take a quality of what makes someone different and turn it into a degrading slur. This is how Mormon was derived. They took the most prominent element of what made the church different–the Book of Mormon–and shortened it into a nickname. We have successfully given the label positive connotations, but the metonymy will never cease to place the focus on what makes us different from the rest of Christianity, and that will always be a problem.
When a nickname is metonymously derived from whatever makes it different, it pretty much always turns into a degrading pejorative, doesn’t it? Please, give me one example of a positive metonymous nickname. Just one. Now, it doesn’t have to be a malicious pejorative; it could be playful like using “ginger” for a red-headed person, but it still focuses on what makes a person different. The entire point is to separate that person and group into the “them, not us” category. The point of “Mormon” from the start was to alienate us from Christianity, as they took the most glaring element of the faith that is not shared with the rest of Christianity–the Book of Mormon–and turned that into our name. So every time that name is spoken it effectively becomes a refrain for why we are not like other Christians. This rhetorical misunderstanding has led to a false categorization of the church as a whole in academia:
So when journalists say our the name must “tie the Utah-based faith to Christianity and its own history without confusing it with other denominations,” what does that mean? Do they really mean we must have a nickname that focuses on how we are different from other Christians? Isn’t that basically what they want? This is a demand I utterly reject. No. That will not stand. That is not acceptable.
Will Journalists Change Their Behavior?
Salt Lake Tribune Editor Jennifer Napier-Pearce does not foresee any changes to the paper’s practices:
“’The Tribune’s style has always been to refer to an organization’s full name in its reporting but to shorten to commonly used phrases or nicknames throughout a story for clarity and flow,’ she said in an email. ‘For example, the University of Utah becomes the U., Utes or even just Utah in context. Another example would be Utah GOP for the Utah Republican Party. I don’t see any reason to veer from this standard.’”
Salt Lake Tribune
False Comparison – GOP derives from “Grand Old Party,” which comes from an 1875 congressional describing it as “the gallant old party.” It was a positive descriptor and never used metonymously or in a negative fashion. Not menoymous, not a valid comparison. Positive nicknames are great, if they want to call us something nice. If the Salt Lake Tribune wants to call us “church of uniquely high fertility rates” I’m fine with that. As for University of Utah, Utah derives from Ute, so that is a common-sense name shortening. No negative history with that example either. In fact, that is exactly the same thing as what the church is demanding: shorten our name to “Church of Jesus Christ.” So again, what’s the problem? Go ahead and shorten the name! What we are asking is for journalists to not replace our name with a different word,–but that is what the media insists on doing.
Salt Lake Tribune ignores the origins of the label Mormon and how it has been used to degrade members of the church. If Salt Lake Tribune’s only criteria is “commonly used phrases or nicknames,” then that leaves it open for all sorts of horrible nicknames, doesn’t it? Perhaps this issue illustrates a bigger problem with the media’s policies when it comes to nicknames and labels. Maybe they need to take a good long look at how they label groups and people in general.
But what about the church’s “I’m a Mormon campaign??” Didn’t the church call itself ‘Mormon’ until recently??
Again, the church has fought tooth and nail to take ownership of the label and turn it into something good. The first step when you are being bullied is to laugh off the insults and let them roll off your back. Laugh along when they give you a label. But if the bullying persists, you need to demand it stop. It’s not funny, it’s not cute, and it’s not okay. It needs to stop. I don’t believe “Mormon” should be abandoned completely, because after all, the Book of Mormon is very important for everybody. The heritage which we hold dear is wrapped in this label ‘Mormon,’ and there is no changing that. But we should be more careful about how it is used, and not allow it to be a wedge that keeps people from growing closer to Jesus Christ.
And while we’re at it, can the media please stop using the same spooky dark photoshopped image of the Salt Lake temple below their headlines? You know which one I’m talking about.
See Also:
How To Oppose The Media’s Negative Label ‘Mormon’
The Problem With Break-Away Sects Labeled ‘Mormon’\