One of the critiques I have struggled to confront within my work is why I utilize the term “Mormon” or “Mormonism”. Most often, this critique is posited to me with reference to the 2018 commandment from Russel M. Nelson – the leading prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He gave a talk at the October 2018 conference titled “The Correct Name of the Church” where he advised active members of the faith to distance themselves from the term “Mormon” and to instead reference the true name of the church. He stressed that it was not an attempt at rebranding, nor was it an official name change. Instead, it was only a correction to be stressed and reiterated.
Nelson goes on to say that, “For much of the world, the Lord’s Church is presently disguised as the ‘Mormon Church.’” But how did the term “Mormon” get associated with this church? Why are scholars still using the term to describe Joseph Smith’s early movement? I want to use these questions as an opportunity to discuss the history of the Church’s name, since much of my work is currently situated in the early church movement. Additionally, I think this is an opportunity to be pedagogically transparent! But to do this, we need to outline everything that we are examining here. As scholars, it is important that we situate our conversations in the social, political, and historical realities that give rise to them.
So how did the church get its name? Well, in a recorded commandment given to Oliver Cowdery in 1829, we see the first name of the church appear: The Church of Christ. This would be the first piece of written evidence that indicated the name of the church. The church would keep this name and it would later be formally recognized and published in Revelation Book I – an early church text that contains early revelations given by Joseph Smith from 1829 to 1834. The Church of Christ would hold this name for five years before a new revelation would change again in 1834 to The Church of Latter Day Saints. Then, in April of 1838, Joseph Smith would dictate yet another revelation that renamed the organization the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”. Within these nine years, the church’s name changed three times.
Outside of the church, the greater public knew them by different terms. Nelson makes reference to these terms in his talk – Mormon and Mormon Church. It is interesting to note that he doesn’t make reference to the term “Mormonite” which was a term in use as early as 1831. Within his talk, Nelson argues that these terms were “cruel ” and “abusive”. Looking at early newspapers after the publication of the Book of Mormon, there were indeed seriously charged articles that labeled the early movement as “pretended”, called the Book of Mormon a “forgery”, and argued that Joseph Smith’s followers were ignorant.
This fellow appears to possess the quint essence of impudence, while his fellow laborers are not far behind him in this particular-they go from place to place disturbing in a greater or less degree, the peace of the community–denouncing dire damnation on such as may with hold their approbation from one of the most ridiculous impostures, ever promulgated.
https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/BOMP/id/268/rec/41
Suffice to say, the early movement was often characterized by the critique it received from those people outside of the organization.
Within the nine years of the churches naming and renaming, dissent and fragmentation were a consistent theme. Martin Harris, one of Joseph’s first faithful followers and one of the three witnesses, would break from the main branch and begin his new church. It would also be called the Church of Christ. A day after the church was renamed as the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, David Whitmer was excommunicated and later went on to form his own church – the Church of Christ (or commonly referred to as Whitmerites). George March Hinkle, a commander of Joseph’s in the Mormon War, would be excommunicated and go on to begin his own church called the Church of Jesus Christ, the Bride, the Lamb’s Wife. After Joseph Smith’s death, his son would go on to found the second largest Mormon church modernly – the Community of Christ. With this dissent and fragmentation came a need to solidify the identity of the church.
This is to say that within the early church movement, Joseph Smith and his followers were in a process of forming their own distinct identity. With each revelation, the internal name of the church got longer, emphasizing a new characteristic with each revelation. The first name, The Church of Christ, emphasized their belief that central to the churches organization was Christ. The second name, The Church of Latter Day Saints, emphasized the individual – the Latter Day Saint, as a part of a larger church community. And by 1838, these identities converged to bring together a foundational theological belief with the larger church community. But outside of the organization, the American public formed their own identity for Joseph Smith and his followers in tandem with the church. “Mormon”, “Mormonite”, and “Mormonism” became terms to describe Joseph Smith and his movement by the broader public.
But these terms didn’t stay as outside descriptors for the movement. Nelson himself cites that the widespread use of the term “Mormon” as a reason for his announcement. “As you would expect, responses to this statement and to the revised style guide have been mixed.” He goes on to make an ideological claim regarding the naming of the church, “When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.” Joseph Smith himself is attributed in a correspondence given to the early church newsletter Times and Seasons providing an etymology for the term “Mormon” in Reformed Egyptian to literally mean “more good”. This is not mentioned by Nelson within his talk.
So what’s in a name? A lot. A name can be the basis of forming one’s identity. The early church went through three names in nine years to find one that best articulated their beliefs. For the modern LDS church, it is a rhetorical attempt to finally resolve a contentious debate. Nelson has made several remarks and given talks throughout the years about the correct name of the church. But it would be wrong to say that the church has always had a solid and uncontested identity. Rather, it would be more accurate to discuss the naming of the church as an ideological endeavor to solidify identity, for both members and non-members alike.
