‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet’ is a famous line from William Shakespeare’s Romeo and
Juliet. This is one of many phrases taken from his plays that are employed in
modern parlance. This particular line is used to indicate that things are what
they are, no matter what name you give them.
What’s in a name?
Three years ago this month, Russell M. Nelson, president of the Mormon church,
made an announcement to the Faithful. He said the ‘"Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance
of the name he has revealed for his church." That name, he said, was
given by God to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1838.
“For thus
shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.”[1]
Thus, after years of being known as Mormons, using the name
Mormon for their websites, and releasing documentaries like ‘Meet the Mormons’,
the name was now to be abandoned.
When I heard this news, my first concern was how they might
fit the words ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Tabernacle
Choir’ on a poster, but I needn’t have worried. The world-famous Mormon
Tabernacle Choir would now simply be known as The Tabernacle Choir at Temple
Square.
It was not only the word ‘Mormon’ that the President felt God
wanted them to do away with, but he also said that people should not use the abbreviated
term ‘LDS’, which is my preferred term when speaking to Missionaries; why say ‘Latter-day
Saints’ when LDS will suffice?
As with all previous Presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, President Nelson is considered, by the Faithful, to be a prophet
who leads with revelation. Therefore, just as all faithful Roman Catholics will
follow when Pope speaks ‘ex cathedra’, so a decree from the Prophet of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be adhered to by all Faithful.
The President told members that, when speaking about the
Church, they should only use the names ‘Church of Jesus Christ’, or the ‘Restored
Church of Jesus Christ’, or the full name of ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints’.
But I have a question. What is this really about?
Name change?
Commenting on the change of name, David Marguiles, president
of a Dallas public relations firm said:
‘Rebranding a business or large institution is a difficult task
that usually costs millions of dollars and often takes generations to take hold’[2]
We know that the Church is not short of money, but why spend
millions on rebranding? Marguiles is
confused:
‘The term "Mormon" is engrained in American culture
and has a lot of good equity that the faith would be losing by shifting away
from using it… It's well established so if
you're going to change it you need a reason for changing it that makes sense….
Changing the name sounds like you're covering something up."[3]
He makes some very valid comments. Why drop a term that is
working for you? A term that everybody knows you by. Are they, as Marguiles
suggests, trying to cover something up?
A Correction
In defence of his decision to drop the moniker ‘Mormon’,
President Nelson argued that it is not a name change or a re-branding. He said:
[This] is a
correction. It is the command
of the Lord. Joseph Smith did not name the Church restored through him; neither
did Mormon. It was the Savior Himself who said, “For thus shall my church be
called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”[4]
In
other words, the President says that all they are doing is returning to the
name originally given to them by Jesus. Not only that, but he also suggests
that the use of nicknames greatly offends Jesus. One wonders why, if offended,
the revelation was not given to previous Presidents who appeared happy to use
the nickname ‘Mormon’.
Discarding
Jesus
Nelson
goes on:
What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it
comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon
Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important
thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name
from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His
Atonement.[5]
One
of the reasons why President Nelson decided to drop the name ‘Mormon’ and ‘LDS’ could be that he is a traditionalist. He is seeking
to keep the church holding on to its heritage. If God gave a name for his
church to Joseph Smith, then that is what it should be called. If true, I would
agree with him, but I believe there is a second, more important reason.
President Nelson wants to keep the name of Jesus Christ front and centre, so
that they appear, at least to the outside world, to be bona fide Christians.
It
is a similar move to when, in 1982, the Church added the strapline ‘Another
Testament of Jesus Christ’ to the front of the Book of Mormon. This was done,
they say, to avoid misconceptions about the book. At the time President Boyd K.
Packer said:
“The Book of Mormon has been misunderstood. With the
subtitle, it takes its place where it should be—beside the Old Testament and
the New Testament.”[6]
Cover
up
My
own personal thought is that David Marguiles was on to something when he
suggested a cover up.
In
changing all their websites to include the name Christ and insisting that your
members all use the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
President Nelson is covering the fact that they are not biblically orthodox
Christians, but just Mormons. The new name does not change their errant beliefs.
After all, things are what they are, regardless of what name you give them.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And a cult by any other name would still
be a cult.
Comments