Is the "Mormon" label fading?

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Is ‘Mormon’ on its last legs?

The shift among the press toward heeding the church’s desire to jettison the “Mormon” term to describe the faith and its members is growing more evident and will continue to expand.

So states Michael Peterson in a recent Public Square Magazine article.

“Though some recent national church-related stories contained the previous names in their headlines, nevertheless the clear, overall trend is one of adjustment and respect,” he writes. “...One very recent scholarly essay on a church history topic, written by a respected historian who initially resisted the change, repeated the term ‘Latter-day Saints’ throughout most of his references — instead of the oft-used previous nicknames.”

Peterson details the reasons why all should follow President Russell M. Nelson’s call to discard the commonly used Mormon and Mormonism monikers, and challenges a string of counterarguments, including some The Salt Lake Tribune and others have put forth.

The writer speculates that the day will come (or has come) that any media outlets, bloggers, scholars or script writers who continue to wield those names may automatically be seen as antagonistic toward the church.

“In the spirit of kindness and goodwill and friendship which we all seek earnestly in the world,” Peterson concludes, “I humbly suggest that it behooves each of us, as fellow travelers here, either of press or public, from scholars to ordinary observers, to forever drop the terms ‘Mormonism’ and ‘Mormon’ and willingly call The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its members, culture, and teachings — past and present — by their authorized names.”

(For the record, in a recent unscientific survey of our 8,200-plus newsletter subscribers and Patreon supporters, 85% of the 840 respondents favored that we retain the names of our podcast and newsletter. So we’re keeping them as is for now.)

I'm not keen on inferring animus when uses of "Mormon" arise.  Think of how long the Church's PSAs signed off with "From The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Mormons."  The Mormon Tabernacle Choir.  The "I'm a Mormon" campaign.  The "Meet the Mormons" film.  Mormon.org.  We adopted this nickname and used it for decades.  It stands to reason that jettisoning it will not be an immediate or easy process.

The Peterson article referenced and linked to in the above is worth a read.  He includes an interesting quote as to media referrences to the Church:

Quote

Some say, “The previous, more familiar terms are what our readers (or listeners) already know. Our job is to serve them.” Yet is it not for readers to know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the actual name of this Church? Should the public audience consistently be given substitute references, names not currently authorized by the church of note? And references that not only can potentially confuse the audience, but also mislabel an entire global church and its individual members, and may well invite unwary, unintentional disrespect? Could it be that, by so doing, many readers are in fact misled? 

Al Tompkins, who teaches both journalism and ethics as Senior Faculty at the Poynter Institute—a globally-renowned school for journalism—commented on the Church’s name correction and its specific, related guidance, advising writers: “You may say, ‘Wait, who are you to tell me what to call it?’ I’m only telling you to call it what it is, what the proper noun of it is. Who am I (as a journalist)? I’m here to identify you. If it’s your name, it’s your name … this is an issue of accuracy, an issue of clarity, and in some ways an issue of respect.” 

In a society insistent on the absolute necessity of calling individuals by their preferred pronoun (even if those preferences shift), surely the same courtesy can be given to an entire church. 

He also tries to document the idea that the shift away from "Mormon" appears to be working:

Quote

Now, more good news: the continuing reports of the courteous reaction among much of the press—along with many fellow Christians and our friends in other faiths. Though  some recent national Church-related stories contained the previous names in their headlines, nevertheless the clear, overall trend is one of adjustment and respect.  

For example, a review of world press coverage over the first six months following the announcement revealed a respectful approach to both the topic itself and the Church’s view concerning it. As Bob Smietana of Religion News Service reported: “Outsiders, researchers, and reporters respected the religion’s right to self-identify, and many strived to follow its preferred style guide.” 

Richard J. Mouw, president emeritus of the Fuller Theological Seminary and a leading Evangelical writer and speaker, apparently reacting to a few early naysayers, remarked: “It’s hard to get worked up over this. Many churches ‘own’ labels expressing identities the rest of us also claim.” The Reverend Dr. Andrew Teal, Oxford chaplain and Christian religious scholar, said of the correction: “Initially, I thought, why use all these words when the singular Mormon might do? But now I see just how sloppy that would be, and the wisdom of that revelation to President Nelson.” Dr. Teal sees it as an emphasis on “eternal identity, that of belonging to the only name under Heaven conveying health and salvation.“

The needle continues to move: an in-depth study of news reports covering the first 24 months after the announcement found that those writing neutral or favorable articles about the Church—and there were many—tended to use the authorized references, and those authoring critical or unfavorable stories were inclined to resurrect the old terms. As time moves forward, the shift is more and more visible. One very recent scholarly essay on a Church history topic, written by a respected historian who initially resisted the change, repeated the term “Latter-day Saints” throughout most of his references—instead of the oft-used previous nicknames. For many members, it now feels strange that we ever called ourselves “Mormon,” especially given the new feel and focus of our accurate identity. We experience this as a welcome, new and permanent reality.  

Interesting stuff.  For me personally, the shift in my writing and speaking from "Mormon" and "LDS" has taken some effort, but it's markedly easier now than it was two years ago.  More to the point, the emphasis on the name of Christ has had a substantial impact on me.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Anecdotal from my wife here in Ohio. When asked what church she attends, she uses the full name of the church. There are usually two responses:

I’ve never heard of that. 

Oh, Latter-day Saints. That’s the Mormons, right?

I never talk about religion here. The last thing I want to talk to people about is my religious past and why I left. When people find out I moved here from Utah, I tell them, truthfully, that I was working at Hill AFB.

[JAHS]

We have been known as Mormons for so long I think it will take a few generations before the label is gone for good. There are a lot of church related websites that have the word Mormon or LDS in the title of their site. It's not an easy thing to rename those websites and still be noticeable as something having church related content. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I'm not keen on inferring animus when uses of "Mormon" arise.  Think of how long the Church's PSAs signed off with "From The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Mormons."  The Mormon Tabernacle Choir.  The "I'm a Mormon" campaign.  The "Meet the Mormons" film.  Mormon.org.  We adopted this nickname and used it for decades.  It stands to reason that jettisoning it will not be an immediate or easy process.

The Peterson article referenced and linked to in the above is worth a read.  He includes an interesting quote as to media referrences to the Church:

He also tries to document the idea that the shift away from "Mormon" appears to be working:

Interesting stuff.  For me personally, the shift in my writing and speaking from "Mormon" and "LDS" has taken some effort, but it's markedly easier now than it was two years ago.  More to the point, the emphasis on the name of Christ has had a substantial impact on me.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

So if you drop Mormonism what you use? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintism?  LDSism?  IT is amazing with all the problems in the world that due to President Nelson's pet peeve, and that is what it is, so much is made over this.

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, JAHS said:

We have been known as Mormons for so long I think it will take a few generations before the label is gone for good. There are a lot of church related websites that have the word Mormon or LDS in the title of their site. It's not an easy thing to rename those websites and still be noticeable as something having church related content. 

I think the linked article makes a good point that writers favorable or neutral toward the Church are more and more using the preferred name and that, eventually, by default, those who don’t will brand themselves, intentionally or not, as antagonistic or, at best quaint — like those who still use the term “negro.” 

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So if you drop Mormonism what you use? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintism?  LDSism?  IT is amazing with all the problems in the world that due to President Nelson's pet peeve, and that is what it is, so much is made over this.

This is not just a pet peeve. This edict has come before but the leadership was not committed to fully put it into action. Monson raised it for example and then we were all confused when mormon.org was launched. We are not mormons just a baptists are not bibles and Jews are not mose's. Just because the media likes simple single word titles for their sound bites does not mean gods religion needs to comply.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So if you drop Mormonism what you use?

I seldom used "Mormonism" in the past, and virtually never use it now.  It is an umbrella term roughly equivalent, in practical and sociological meaning, to the "Latter-day Saint Movement."  I think these terms are intended to encompass all the various denominations that trace their origins to Joseph Smith:

I seldom have need to reference "Mormonism" or the "Latter-day Saint Movement."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintism?  LDSism? 

When referring to the institutional church, I refer to the Church by its full name or its preferred short forms ("the Church of Jesus Christ" or "the Church").

When referring to the teachings/doctrines/beliefs of the Church, I use those terms (or "Restored Gospel").

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

IT is amazing with all the problems in the world that due to President Nelson's pet peeve, and that is what it is, so much is made over this.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. 

As the Savior put it: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."  (Mathew 23:23.)

I think the Church is working hard on "the weightier matters of the law," while also taking steps to see that the somewhat less "weighty" matters are not left "undone."  Nothing the Church has done in emphasizing its name has detracted from or otherrwise lessened its efforts relative to the four-fold mission of the Church.

And for what it's worth, I think this is an important point.  It's taken me a while to come to that way of thinking.  The name by which we are called and by which we call ourselves is important, both spiritually and practically.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2022 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And for what it's worth, I think this is an important point.  It's taken me a while to come to that way of thinking.  The name by which we are called and by which we call ourselves is important, both spiritually and practically.

Not the least among the reasons is that it is a direct commandment from Christ Himself that the Church bear His name. To ignore the commandment is to defy Christ Himself — no small thing. 

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not the least among the reasons is that it is a direct commandment from Christ Himself that the Church bear His name. To ignore the commandment is to defy Christ Himself — no small thing. 

Well I guess Hinckley and Monson deified Christ. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well I guess Hinckley and Monson deified Christ. 

Wow, that is an interesting theological innovation.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the linked article makes a good point that writers favorable or neutral toward the Church are more and more using the preferred name and that, eventually, by default, those who don’t will brand themselves, intentionally or not, as antagonistic or, at best quaint — like those who still use the term “negro.” 

The problem is that there will always be antagonists who will continue to use the terms just to show their contempt and defiance against the church. Instead of Mormon being an identifier of the religion it will become a dirty word that will be used by those who are not just antagonists but also by those who claim we are not Christian.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Instead of Mormon being an identifier of the religion it will become a dirty word that will be used by those who are not just antagonists but also by those who claim we are not Christian

Until we have something to replace Mormonism, I have my doubts this will happen.  Can you think of any label that has a comparable situation?

[CA Steve]

I am old school in that I do not have a Facebook account, nor have I ever tweeted, and I rarely text. I have never Snapchatted, Tiktoked, Instagrammed or WhatsApped. But I have noticed one thing in common with all of these social media communications, which is brevity, or as I like to tell my socially addicted kids, "lack of meaningful written content".   I strongly suspect that it will not be mainstream media keeping "Mormon" alive so much as it will be social networking, No way the social network generations are going to use a 30 plus character phrase, when one only 6 characters longs works as well and is much better known.

Edited February 25, 2022 by CA Steve

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Until we have something to replace Mormonism, I have my doubts this will happen.  Can you think of any label that has a comparable situation?

I don't know. This is not about physical attributes or sexual orientation that people, for the most part, do not choose to have or not have. It's what they are.
Our religion is a belief system that may be right or may be wrong and there will always be people who will believe it is not right and will fight against it.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

This is not just a pet peeve. This edict has come before but the leadership was not committed to fully put it into action. Monson raised it for example and then we were all confused when mormon.org was launched. We are not mormons just a baptists are not bibles and Jews are not mose's. Just because the media likes simple single word titles for their sound bites does not mean gods religion needs to comply.

The convenient one-word reference to Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc., does not disrespect them at all, and they are not demanding that all references to them be to their official church names

In any case, that still does not deal with the unwieldy nature of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintism?  LDSism?"  Teancum does have a point:  What is your suggested substitute for "Mormonism"?  Moreover, calling a Jack Mormon a "Latter-day Saint" seems counterfactual.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The convenient one-word reference to Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc., does not disrespect them at all, and they are not demanding that all references to them be to their official church names

In any case, that still does not deal with the unwieldy nature of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintism?  LDSism?"  Teancum does have a point:  What is your suggested substitute for "Mormonism"?  Moreover, calling a Jack Mormon a "Latter-day Saint" seems counterfactual.

Too bad Mormon-ism isn't allowed. Just as so many other things in the past are fading.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I am old school in that I do not have a Facebook account, nor have I ever tweeted, and I rarely text. I have never Snapchatted, Tiktoked, Instagrammed or WhatsApped. But I have noticed one think in common with all of these social media communications, which is brevity, or as I like to tell my socially addicted kids, "lack of meaningful written content".  

I am adding the above to the growing lists of reasons that I really like you. 

In addition to having in common a history of not using the listed technologies, I’ve never had a bumper sticker because I believe life is far too nuanced to capture on a bumper sticker.  The only one I’ve seen that I thought I could put on my bumper is “Jesus Saves, Esposito Scores On The Rebound” because I think it would get a chuckle out of Him.

Edited February 24, 2022 by let’s roll

[Stormin' Mormon]

Ima just post this real quick-like.

https://babylonbee.com/news/member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-wishes-there-were-a-shorter-way-to-say-member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints
 

Quote

 

PROVO, UT—After an exhausting conversation with some friends about his church, local member of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints LaDell Ballard wished there were a shorter way members of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints could say they were members of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints. 

“Latter-Day Christians?” thought LaDell as he corralled his children into the minivan so they could get to Chick-Fil-A for dinner before the onslaught of other minivans. “Christians in These Latter Days? MOTCOJCOLDS?”

 

Note: I'm posting this because it made me laugh.  I take no position one way or the other on the appropriateness of the word "Mormon."

[jkwilliams]

59 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am old school in that I do not have a Facebook account, nor have I ever tweeted, and I rarely text. I have never Snapchatted, Tiktoked, Instagrammed or WhatsApped. But I have noticed one think in common with all of these social media communications, which is brevity, or as I like to tell my socially addicted kids, "lack of meaningful written content".   I strongly suspect that it will not be mainstream media keeping "Mormon" alive so much as it will be social networking, No way the social network generations are going to use a 30 plus character phrase, when one only 6 characters longs works as well and is much better known.

It’s very difficult to force language to change. Racist language, for example, has become far less common because a large part of our society came to believe their use was inappropriate. But such a change in language usage requires social pressure that is, thus far, lacking in the effort to redirect the church’s name usage. 

When my wife gets asked what church she attends, the answer inevitably ends up with some form of “Mormon.” I don’t see that changing much anytime soon. 

[the narrator]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

So if you drop Mormonism what you use? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintism?  LDSism?  IT is amazing with all the problems in the world that due to President Nelson's pet peeve, and that is what it is, so much is made over this.

This is absolutely frustrating when editing a book--especially when the Church-approved replacements (such as Church of Jesus Christ or Restored Gospel) assume certain faith claims.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

This is absolutely frustrating when editing a book--especially when the Church-approved replacements (such as Church of Jesus Christ or Restored Gospel) assume certain faith claims.

When it first happened my first thought was that it would have a heck of an impact on editors. Thank heavens I don’t work in anything church-related anymore. 

[rongo]

I think people's claimed ability to never use "Mormon" is inversely proportionate to how often they talk to outsiders/people they don't know well about the Church. 

For that reason, I don't think its use is actually declining. There are (will hopefully always be) many people who frequently talk with people they don't know well about the Church. For these people, simplicity and clarity of communication is important, and people know more about the Church and her stance to Jesus Christ (even though they use "Mormon") than they do when talking to people who refuse to ever say "Mormon." Their "lines are in the water" and they have more conversations with people, period. And, people know they are Mormons, and they know them and they know their example and how they carry themselves and act. 

[the narrator]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The convenient one-word reference to Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc., does not disrespect them at all, and they are not demanding that all references to them be to their official church names

In any case, that still does not deal with the unwieldy nature of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintism?  LDSism?"  Teancum does have a point:  What is your suggested substitute for "Mormonism"?  Moreover, calling a Jack Mormon a "Latter-day Saint" seems counterfactual.

Currently working on a book that used the full name of the Church (including the annoying capitalized direct article--which is emphasized by the Church for it's exclusionary religious claims) three times in a paragraph with four sentences.

For "Mormonism," I use different phrasings depending on the context: "the Church and its people" "Latter-day Saint history and culture" etc. Of course, this becomes all the more difficult when discussing the larger Mormon tradition that isn't just "Latter-day Saint."

Seems that Mormonism's founding prophet and his many successors understood the wisdom of embracing "Mormonism" as an all-encompassing word.

[the narrator]

Also, "anti-LDS" and "anti-Latter-day Saint" aren't a thing. The correct word is anti-Mormon, and it's historically rooted in other counter-cultural and political movements--such as the Anti-Masonic Party and the Anti-Mormon Party.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Currently working on a book that used the full name of the Church (including the annoying capitalized direct article--which is emphasized by the Church for it's exclusionary religious claims) three times in a paragraph with four sentences.

For "Mormonism," I use different phrasings depending on the context: "the Church and its people" "Latter-day Saint history and culture" etc. Of course, this becomes all the more difficult when discussing the larger Mormon tradition that isn't just "Latter-day Saint."

Seems that Mormonism's founding prophet and his many successors understood the wisdom of embracing "Mormonism" as an all-encompassing word.

Sounds like a nightmare. Of course, editing Defense Department documents has its own challenges.