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.
The church wants references to the church and its members to reflect the real name of the church. A shortened substitute name for the church could be “Church of Jesus Christ,” and for members “Latter-day Saints,” according to the updated style guide. Does this mean the label “Mormon” is completely out? No more “Mormon”? Well, the church guide only talks about labels for the church and its members. So, good news! I think “Mormon funeral potatoes” is still in!
The problem is enemies of the church seek to “expunge the sacred name of Jesus Christ” from our identity. Our name must not become a wedge that drives us away from Christianity. This doesn’t make the name Mormon is evil or should be shunned, but it is problematic if it prevents us from “clearly acknowledging” Jesus as the source of spiritual power. When we are talking about “Mormon history,” “Mormon pioneers,” or “Mormon culture” we must always be mindful of whether our labeling adds confusion about our Christianity. If not, I think it’s fine.
Are You A Christian?
In high school, a friend of mine–a really sweet girl–asked me: “Are you Christian?”
“Yes. Well, I am Mormon,” I replied.
“Oh. What’s the difference?”
Until this moment, I thought our church was isolated from the rest of Christianity. Christian talk radio never had anything good to say about us. I had visited other Christian churches a couple times and I found their theater-style performances bizarre. And I had seen angry protesters at General Conference carrying their banners and screaming, ‘Christians aren’t Mormon!’ Are mainstream Christians really open to the idea that we worship Jesus Christ, I wondered?
“Yeah, that’s what I say, what’s the difference? We are Christian.”
“But why didn’t you just say ‘Yes, I’m Christian’? Why did you have to call yourself by a different name?” she insisted.
She was right. There was really no good reason. To add a descriptor name was to imply that I was separate or a special Christian in some way. Is that what I am? I have thought about the conversation over the years, and I think a lot of the confusion about us comes down to how we have reacted to persecution. We want to be the separate sequestered civilization in the oasis of Salt Lake and yet receive a plate at the table of Christianity. In the reaction to Russell M. Nelson’s excellent talk about the naming policy, I see some members worry that we will be seen as just some generic Christian church if we use the name “Church of Jesus Christ.” So? Why would that be a problem? When I spoke to my friend, maybe I added the marker “Mormon” out of a prideful desire to be better than ‘generic Christians’, and this is something I regret.
Later as a missionary, my mission President told us to avoid calling the church ‘Mormon.’ At first I thought this direction was incongruent with his other instruction to focus on what makes us different from the other churches: the Book of Mormon, modern prophets, etc. Doesn’t “Mormon” signify everything that sets us apart? But I followed my mission President’s advice anyway, and guess what? I found greater success. Turns out just being a “Christian” missionary brings people more effectively to Christ.
The labeling issue is very subtle but very telling. When a foreigner asks, “Are you American?” do you reply, “Yes, I’m Utahn”? This would imply that you consider yourself fundamentally different than people in New York or Tennessee, and there is really no reason for you to reply this way unless the country were at Civil War. We are starting to understand how the issue of the ‘Mormon’ label speaks to our self-perception. We all consider ourselves Christian, but maybe it is time to consider whether the basis of our identity rests on being Christian or on being different. Are we a church sequestered in Utah or are we a church preaching Christianity around the globe? When I started following my mission President’s advice, I realized that our perceived isolation from Christianity is the product of the angry protesters which target our General Conferences, pageant performances, and online discussions. They set a frame where we are apart from Christianity, and we fall into this frame and believe it. Perhaps their heckling our General Conference is not so much designed to dissuade people from joining our church as it is meant to persuade us that we are freaks not allowed to publicly be seen as Christians.
Embracing Worldwide Christian Leadership
Ecumenism? – There are certain words that immediately raise a red flag when I see them in a newspaper article. One red-flag words for me is “ecumenism.” When I see a church speak of “ecumenism with other churches” I become suspicious. Maybe that’s unfair of me. Probably. But there is a reason churches are different to begin with. Protestants went to a lot of effort to schism from the Catholics, and unless the Catholics are willing to change their doctrine which led to the schism, why would the Protestants change their mind? For us, the things that make us unique are vital to who we are and we must not compromise. I am glad that “ecumenism” is a word that doesn’t show up at all in the database of Conference talks. Those other groups worship Christ, teach many righteous principles, and effect a lot of good in the world, but they do not determine how our church operates.
New Global Leadership – That being said, we are living in an age and culture dominated by secular philosophies, and it is easier for all churches to succeed if we come together with what makes us similar. It’s getting to the point where a church can’t hope to survive unless they either reach out to other churches or compromise with secular philosophies, because the rhetorical attacks against all churches are so strong. We see the traditional leadership of top worldwide churches faltering under these relentless assaults. A recent example is the Pope’s negotiations with China. Reports indicate the Pope is considering giving the Marxist government of China power over whom the church picks as leaders, and advocates of religious freedom worry this emboldens China’s intolerance of religious freedom and non-Catholic churches. It pretty much means the Catholic Church will have a monopoly on religion in China and the Marxists will be in charge. This is not positive leadership for global Christianity. This is not something that propagates Christianity and unites churches. More and more, people are ditching churches because of such behavior. They are looking for new leadership.
Our new leadership of global Christianity took prominence with the Proposition 8 issue, and I don’t think it is coincidence that Proposition 8 is what ushered in today’s relentless Antimormon propaganda in the mainstream media. Did you see such negative press against our church before then? Not so much. Global culture leaders who run media corporations took note: there’s a new sheriff in town. I believe our maturing as a church and the change in how other churches look to us has some role to play in the name policy. It’s like (to get really nerdy here) Gandalf the Grey relinquishing his name and becoming known officially as Mithandreal which was his real name all along. We are not some orthodox civilization out in the deserts of Utah. We are the church of Jesus Christ.
Respecting Our Own Culture – I still plan to say “Mormon pioneers” unless advised otherwise. When it comes to things other than the specific church or its members, the context is a culture that we are part of and which we love. I think this shows respect to our ancestors who fought tooth and nail to build that culture and persevere through the persecution. But I will also be careful that doing so does not infer that this culture is anything other than Christian. Most of all, I will be wary of hostile forces who hijack our culture and this church to set a negative rhetorical frame. That will no longer stand. No more.
