Is Russell Nelson’s push to drop the ‘Mormon’ name working with Latter-day Saints and outsiders? Will it last?

[sunstoned]

This is an article in the SL Trib, by Peggy Fletcher Stack, that discusses the use of the term "Mormon".  Personally, I believe usage of the team will pick up as time goes on.  It is hard to overcome a 200 year old habit.   The article is behind a pay wall, so I have cut and pasted the main sections.

Quote

Of all the moves made by President Russell M. Nelson during his nearly eight-year tenure as leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, none was as controversial and complicated to implement as insisting that everyone essentially eschew the word “Mormon.”

 

Quote

 

The 2018 command was so unequivocal that the faith and the faithful scrambled to follow their prophet. Websites were changed — mormon.org became churchofjesuschrist.org, for instance. Even the renowned Mormon Tabernacle Choirlost its signature identifier. 

It hasn’t been easy, however, to overturn a nearly 200-year-old “nickname,” one that had been embraced and even promoted by church founder Joseph Smith and subsequent church presidents. “I’m a Mormon” was the centerpiece of a sweeping church advertising campaign in the 2000s. Mitt Romney’s historic run for president was widely known as a “Mormon moment.” And other prominent members, (including Romney himself and “Jeopardy!” host Ken Jennings) continued to use the term.

 

As recently as December, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox referred to himself as a “Mormon” in his appearance with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a “Jew.”

In McKay Coppins’ 2021 Atlantic piece, “The Most American Religion,” about his faith and the global church, he used the banned word 143 times.

 

Coppins is no heretic, inclined to rebel against the prophet’s rule. The reporter used Mormon “for clarity’s sake,” he wrote somewhat apologetically, and also because the church’s name “presented a multisyllabic writerly dilemma that my own God-given talents left me powerless to solve.”

Clarity — not lack of respect or disobedience or mean-spiritedness — has been the dilemma faced by journalists and scholars as well as members since Nelson, seven months after taking the faith’s helm, denounced Mormon as shorthand for the church and its members.

But will his successors have the same drive? 

 

Quote

 

 

New church President Dallin H. Oaks has never expressed “a similar anxiety” about the name, says historian Benjamin Park. “There are plenty of anecdotes that Oaks still uses the ‘M’ word prolifically.”

 

And, in 2021, apostle Neil L. Andersen reiterated Nelson’s call for “fair-minded [members] of the media to honor our desire to be called by our name of nearly 200 years.”

Trouble is, the Mormon nickname also has been around for those same centuries. And it remains the most recognizable term for members of the church — easy to remember, to translate, and, frankly, to use in a sentence.

 

Journalists, scholars and students still use the term “because of convenience,” says Diane Winston, who holds the Knight Chair in Media and Religion at the University of Southern California. “Most people still don’t know what a Latter-day Saint is.”

Replacing Mormon with Latter-day Saints “challenges a speech pattern that is familiar and recognizable,” she says, “while offering something that is not.” 

Oftentimes, when groups get a nickname they don’t like, “they adopt it and make it their own — like gay people using queer. By embracing it, the sting of the word is gone,” she says. “When Joseph Smith adopted Mormon, it took away the power of the insult by making it an everyday word.”

 

A Christian by any other name

Because there are so many variations on those who claim Jesus Christ as their central figure of worship, a church’s name — or nickname — can tell others which part of the theology or practice they emphasize. 

They’re convenient ways to differentiate among the groups, and the Mormon tag is no different. Presbyterian, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Quakers. These are one-word names for Christian denominations. None of them contains the words Jesus or Christ and yet they are all accepted as Christian.

Using the full name of the church “hasn’t answered the complexity of whether we are Christian or not,” says writer and marketer Neylan McBaine — who launched the Mormon Women Project in 2010 (renamed the LDS Women Project). “Mormonism presents other distinctions from mainstream Christianity.”

Mormon has the added benefit, she says, of connecting the faithful with their signature scripture (the Book of Mormon) and their history. 

Giving up the word that described members since the beginning “feels like we are betraying our ancestors, turning our backs to our heritage and the people associated with the term,” McBaine says, and Latter-day Saint “doesn’t mention Jesus either.”

 

 

Quote

 

What the church and its members need is “something that is easy to say and highly recognizable,” she argues, “and ‘Christian’ doesn’t work because it needs to be more distinctive.” 

“Linguistically, this is a mess,” Hales says, but she has faith that “eventually the powerful forces of language and innovation will win out.”

No telling, she writes, how long it will take.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/

[Pyreaux]

I always saw it as a ban for official use in titles and publications, not a hard ban of for members or the public, just a call to resist it, especially the term "Mormon Church" and resist naming things it, if you claim to be faithful.  Now I am thinking it may have much to do with how in just a few years, the Church is "policing" the trademark. And so it well could go after members and non-members using it. RIP Mormon Stories.

 

 

[the narrator]

I was recently told by someone who regularly met with members of the FP and Q12 that Oaks is not shy about using "Mormon" and uses it frequently, so I imagine it will come back on it own, if not implicitly prompted by new leadership. (From this same person and others, I've also been told that there was some frustration from members of the 12 and Nelson's counselors with Nelson frequently acting unilaterally without consulting the quorums--as was the case when he pushed out the exclusion policy years ago as the Q12 prez.)

Edited January 26 by the narrator

[MustardSeed]

I just hope we can hold on to some of the other changes pres Nelson initiated.  I don’t care about the name but you can pry 2 hour church and my slip from my cold dead hands 😂

[Duncan]

On 1/26/2026 at 12:05 PM, the narrator said:

I was recently told by someone who regularly met with members of the FP and Q12 that Oaks is not shy about using "Mormon" and uses it frequently, so I imagine it will come back on it own, if not implicitly prompted by new leadership. (From this same person and others, I've also been told that there was some frustration from members of the 12 and Nelson's counselors with Nelson frequently acting unilaterally without consulting the quorums--as was the case when he pushed out the exclusion policy years ago as the Q12 prez.)

I've heard also the 12 didn't know anything about the Nauvoo being rebuilt, rededicated, also the 70 didn't know anything about the lowering of the ages to 18 and 19 with Pres. Monson

[Calm]

On 1/26/2026 at 11:05 AM, the narrator said:

I was recently told by someone who regularly met with members of the FP and Q12 that Oaks is not shy about using "Mormon" and uses it frequently, so I imagine it will come back on it own, if not implicitly prompted by new leadership. (From this same person and others, I've also been told that there was some frustration from members of the 12 and Nelson's counselors with Nelson frequently acting unilaterally without consulting the quorums--as was the case when he pushed out the exclusion policy years ago as the Q12 prez.)

I have always assumed that each president and apostle likely has something near and dear to his heart that he sees as a mission to fulfill if in a position to do so given many presidents seem to have a theme or focus they keep coming back to in their presidencies.  I don’t track apostles’ topics well enough to pick out consistent themes in their talks, but I remember others pointing out a theme for a particular apostle on occasion.

Pres Nelson to me had the personality I usually associate with a cardiac surgeon, someone who is passionate about/highly committed to their work*** and extraordinary self confident/have faith in themselves.  How else would someone have the nerve to open a chest and operate on someone’s heart?  So it’s not surprising to me he was intense in pushing something through once he had decided it was worth doing.

I have never had any problem with the choice to change to a stronger emphasis on the actual name, including investing in making the changes (I wonder who owned “churchofjesuschrist.org” before the Church did and how much it cost to get it, I think that was a brilliant move even though I so miss the ease of LDS.org).  I do have a significant issue with labeling the use of Mormon as a win for Satan, even if that was intended to be limited solely to removing the actual name.  I can see the refusal to acknowledge the Church and its members as followers of Christ as a “victory for  Satan” since it may lead others to reject learning of the gospel and all that Christ has done and is willing to do for us (most Christian faiths acknowledge the greatness of the Atonement, but there are additional blessings the Lord gives us that may not be acknowledged and even may be rejected as blasphemy by some).  I do wish there was more nuance that use of “Mormon” instead of the Church’s name is not satanic or knowingly choosing evil over good, but it does create an unnecessary stumbling block for understanding and acceptance (as Christian).  It is the norm for a Christian faith to have  nicknames that is not “Christian”, so I don’t see it as inherently misleading as long as we push for greater recognition of our actual name and beliefs being connected with “Mormon”.

I also don’t believe there is an issue with having pride in the name of “Mormon” because of the positive heritage behind it.  It makes the most sense to me to emphasize the actual name in order to strengthen the public’s view of our attempting to following Christ even if they then choose to see us as heretics in our attempts, but it also makes sense to me to relax about the traditional name once we have made an effort to ensure the other knows we see ourselves as devout followers of Christ.

Quote

 

To remove the Lord's name from the Lord's Church is a major victory for Satan.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng

***Have you read about this guy’s commitment to learning in Wiki?  Unless classes were tons easier in the past, this is rather jaw dropping for me.

Quote

Nelson studied at LDS Business College in his mid-teens (concurrently with high school enrollment) and worked as an assistant secretary at a bank.[13] He graduated from East High School at age sixteen and enrolled at the University of Utah,[14][15][16] where he was a member of the Beta Epsilon chapter of Sigma Chiand Owl and Key. He graduated in 1945 with a bachelor's degree and Phi Beta Kappa membership. He then attended the University of Utah School of Medicine, graduating with a Doctor of Medicine degree in 1947, ranked first in his class.[15]He began his first year of medical school while still an undergraduate, and he completed the four-year MD program in only three years.

Bachelor’s at 21 (I wonder if he kept his side job at the bank to pay for tuition), Doctorate 2 years later?  MD in 3?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

I've heard also the 12 didn't know anything about the Nauvoo being rebuilt, rededicated, also the 70 didn't know anything about the lowering of the ages to 18 and 19 with Pres. Monson

The Nauvoo temple was (mostly?) paid for with a private donation(s?).  That seems like something that would be grabbed if offered, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the initial decision of yes or no was made on the spot rather than discussed beforehand.  I would think there was also a meeting to be sure no one had reservations about it, to give the official approval of the Quorum before it was announced, but unless there was another major project that had been waiting in the wings but really needed to be done, why wouldn’t it go forward?

https://www.deseret.com/1999/4/5/19438397/nauvoo-temple-to-rise-again-br-pres-hinckley-hails-donation-to-rebuild-edifice/

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

The Nauvoo temple was (mostly?) paid for with a private donation(s?).  That seems like something that would be grabbed if offered, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the initial decision of yes or no was made on the spot rather than discussed beforehand.  I would think there was also a meeting to be sure no one had reservations about it, to give the official approval of the Quorum before it was announced, but unless there was another major project that had been waiting in the wings but really needed to be done, why wouldn’t it go forward?

https://www.deseret.com/1999/4/5/19438397/nauvoo-temple-to-rise-again-br-pres-hinckley-hails-donation-to-rebuild-edifice/

I found the comment, it's from 2015 from a blog comment, by common consent

"Elder Scott told us that the First Presidency was the only group who new that the Nauvoo Temple was to be rebuilt, the Quorum of the Twelve did not yet know about it. He said the First Presidency had not decided how and when to announce it. Elder Scott taught us that day that you never know when the Spirit will prompt you to do something and so you really have to act on every one to find out. He cautioned us against saying, “The Spirit prompted me….”, because sometimes it’s hard to tell. He bore his testimony to us, in a way that I have never seen before or since from an Apostle. He ensured he shook each of our hands and looked us square in the eye. I will always remember that day in South Seattle where while I was on the Lord’s errand, I met with one of the Lord’s special witnesses."

[the narrator]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I have always assumed that each president and apostle likely has something near and dear to his heart that he sees as a mission to fulfill if in a position to do so

Wendy's comment about him being "unleashed" makes it pretty clear that Nelson had a list of priorities/grievances that he intended to address once he was in power. Regardless of whether you think his decisions were inspired, his "revealed" decision to push out the exclusion policy and later revelation to rescind it makes a good case for Church leaders to propose their ideas to the membership and have them decide by vote whether it was from God, as directed by scripture.

I'm currently edited a book about LDS efforts to maintain and grow the faith in Eastern Europe and the Soviet bloc during and after the Cold Ward, and (despite my many and strong criticisms I have of Nelson) I am impressed and touched by the years of efforts he put into that area.

[JVW]

2 minutes ago, the narrator said:

it makes a good case for Church leaders to propose their ideas to the membership and have them decide by vote whether it was from God, as directed by scripture.

But we don't decide things by vote in the church, it's not a democracy? We raise our hand to sustain a decision that's already been made, if we disagree with it for a dumb reason then the Stake President will probably help us along a path of repentance/excommunication. If we raise our hand for a good reason, who knows what'll happen? Either way, the decision that was already made prior to the sustaining will not change.

[the narrator]

24 minutes ago, JVW said:

But we don't decide things by vote in the church

Yeah, one of the many ways in which the Church doesn't follow its scriptures.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Yeah, one of the many ways in which the Church doesn't follow its scriptures.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that all decisions made in the church needed to be unanimous (which means we don't decide things by vote)? I'm confused about what part of scripture the church isn't following here. Which sections of D&C are you referring to? (I'm assuming you are referring to D&C since that's where all the church govt stuff is).

[The Nehor]

It might have worked if the official name wasn’t so clunky.

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

Wendy's comment about him being "unleashed" makes it pretty clear that Nelson had a list of priorities/grievances that he intended to address once he was in power. Regardless of whether you think his decisions were inspired, his "revealed" decision to push out the exclusion policy and later revelation to rescind it makes a good case for Church leaders to propose their ideas to the membership and have them decide by vote whether it was from God, as directed by scripture.

I'm currently edited a book about LDS efforts to maintain and grow the faith in Eastern Europe and the Soviet bloc during and after the Cold Ward, and (despite my many and strong criticisms I have of Nelson) I am impressed and touched by the years of efforts he put into that area.

when the book comes out, let me know I am super interest in that area. I have been reading about East Germany and their saints and troubles and whatnot before the wall fell.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It might have worked if the official name wasn’t so clunky.

And “The Restored Gospel” does not apply to much of what the label “Mormonism” covers, so without a workable option for that even academics and journalists attempting to accommodate the Church’s self identification preferences couldn’t do it much of the time, imo.

This below from the style guide just isn’t well thought out, imo.

”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.”

Green jello and funeral potatoes have nothing to do with the Restored Gospel, but fit snuggly into the Mormonism category, for example (more Utah Mormonism, but they were still present at activities in California when I was growing up).  There is a difference between religious cultural practices and secular cultural practices.  Paying tithing is part of the Restored Gospel, as is charity, scripture study.  Church basketball, dirty sodas, made up swear words…not really.

Edited January 30 by Calm

[sunstoned]

The name change had an uphill struggle right from the start.  First, Mormon was an accepted name for almost 170 years.  This wasn't some derogatory outsider term, but an accepted and promoted name: Meet the Mormons, Mormon Doctrine, and, more recently, the “I'm a Mormon” campaign, which included television spots, billboards, and ads on buses and the Internet. Pres. Hinckley softened Nelson's talk about not using the term by famously embracing the nickname during his presidency (e.g., "I am not ashamed of the nickname Mormon").  To me, it was jarring that Nelson later declared that using "Mormon" is a victory for Satan. 

[JVW]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

And “The Restored Gospel” does not apply to much of what the label “Mormonism” covers, so without a workable option for that even academics and journalists attempting to accommodate the Church’s self identification preferences couldn’t do it much of the time, imo.

This below from the style guide just isn’t well thought out, imo.

”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.”

Green jello and funeral potatoes have nothing to do with the Restored Gospel, but fit snuggly into the Mormonism category, for example (more Utah Mormonism, but they were still present at activities in California when I was growing up).  There is a difference between religious cultural practices and secular cultural practices.  Paying tithing is part of the Restored Gospel, as is charity, scripture study.  Church basketball, dirty sodas, made up swear words…not really.

I wish that we could just use "Saints" or "Latter-day Saints" but I understand that across languages this doesn't work so well and that the Catholics already kind of have claim on that. So instead I'm wondering if we could use something like "disciples of Christ" or "Ephraimites" or "restored Israel". Since we are the Ephraimite church tasked with gathering Israel and all of those three terms either directly reference Christ or lead to Him and infer what the mission of our church is.

I personally don't like the term "Mormon". I'd rather if we were called "Moronis" or "Nephis" or "Almas" or whatever. I just don't like the sound of the word, no particular reason why.

[the narrator]

22 hours ago, JVW said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that all decisions made in the church needed to be unanimous (which means we don't decide things by vote)? I'm confused about what part of scripture the church isn't following here. Which sections of D&C are you referring to? (I'm assuming you are referring to D&C since that's where all the church govt stuff is).

In early Mormonism it was understood as a simple matter of fact that revelations dictating that "all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith” (D&C 26:2) meant that all decisions of leadership, policy, and doctrine were to presented the the membership to vote on. Over the years, this was abandoned to the mere formality of only accepting such things. This is a simple summary:

Quote

The early emphasis of common consent seems centered upon the selection of ecclesiastical leadership; however, doctrinal and procedural issues were also presented before the people for their “vote.” Also during the organizational meeting on April 6, 1830, those at Peter Whitmer’s home were to consent to organizing the Church according to the commandments of the Lord. Three months later, in July 1830, Joseph was instructed that “all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith” (D&C 26:2). This revelation has become a foundation to the government of the Lord’s kingdom and defines the order of proper Church procedure.

Perhaps if Nelson's exclusion policy was presented to the membership (with a healthy understanding that In the end it was their responsibility as a community to determine whether or not it was the will of God), much harm could have been presented rather than it being imposed unilaterally by Nelson and eventually rejected by protest of the membership. Maybe a lot of good could happen if leaders trusted and put faith in the membership more instead of treating them like children who ought to be obedient to them and dismissed if in disagreement.

[the narrator]

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

when the book comes out, let me know I am super interest in that area. I have been reading about East Germany and their saints and troubles and whatnot before the wall fell.

This is the book for you then. The focus is local and non-GA members, which is the sort of Mormon history I find much more interesting and inspiring these days. Looking at a May release right now.

[halconero]

I've actually gotten out of the habit of using the term 'Mormon' in a self-referential way, and have, over time developed a habit of referring to myself as a Latter-day Saint or member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I like it, and will be probably keep doing so.

That said, there is a middle ground, which is that I haven't been particularly shy about using 'Mormon' to bridge people between a term with which they're more likely familiar, to one the I use personally. I think refusing to acknowledge or refer to 'Mormon' as an external term of reference presently and an internal term of reference historically wasn't particularly helpful.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

This is the book for you then. The focus is local and non-GA members, which is the sort of Mormon history I find much more interesting and inspiring these days. Looking at a May release right now.

oh thank you very much! That's great!

[ZealouslyStriving]

I am a Mormon.

I believe in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (not Mormonism)

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (not the Mormon Church)

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I am a Mormon.

I believe in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (not Mormonism)

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (not the Mormon Church)

After Nelson's edict, there was a small panel at UVU on the topic that I was a part of, and following that there was an emergency meeting of heads/chairs/editors of pretty much every Mormon studies program, journal, association, and press to discuss the best way to go forward. At that later meeting, it was agreed upon that the proposal I gave at the panel was the panel was the best way to go, and it essentially expands on the distinction you make here.

[MiserereNobis]

21 hours ago, the narrator said:

This is the book for you then. The focus is local and non-GA members, which is the sort of Mormon history I find much more interesting and inspiring these days. Looking at a May release right now.

I imagine Czechoslovakia is well represented in the book. You have quite a history there. Yoga retreats as LDS recruitment is unexpected. Any mention of Edwin Morrell?

[Rain]

23 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I am a Mormon.

I believe in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ (not Mormonism)

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (not the Mormon Church)

Please know I am not criticizing, and I'm not going to criticize any reason you give, but I'm really curious why you capitalized "Restored Gospel". Would you share why you did, please?