Yesterday I tweeted the following:
“I am once again asking people to worry less about what name is used to refer to the church & its members and worry more about how the church & its members represent the Jesus whose name they claim.”
It’s something that keeps coming up with a few of my local leaders. They’re (in my opinion) a little too fixated on ensuring that everyone always says The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, often to the exclusion of teaching people to be like Christ.
(This is not to say these folks are doing anything bad or wrong. As far as I can tell, they are genuinely good people trying to live Christlike lives. I just wish they would talk less about something we are all well aware of and talk more about…almost anything else.)
Anyway, my tweet prompted some interesting discussion.
Someone recommended a talk from President Nelson from 1990 about, guess what, the name of the church, indicating that this has been a subject on his mind for a long time. They also pointed to a talk by President Hinckley from the subsequent General Conference that seemed to take a similar position to my own: let’s ensure that whatever name people use for the church and its members indicates “that greater good which Jesus Christ exemplified.”
A few people chimed in to claim I was deliberately going against what the prophet has taught and am leading people astray. Which I find hilarious…but also sad. Nowhere did I say the name of the church is unimportant, or that President Nelson is wrong to emphasize that name instead of using the catchall “Mormon.” In fact, they’re kind of illustrating my point.
A friend replied to my original tweet: “Unfortunately, we’ve been asked to focus on both at the same time, and one one option requires considerably less introspection.”
Which is exactly it. Not only does using the correct name of the church require very little introspection, it also is a visible indicator of “faithfulness.” Someone who says Mormon must not follow the prophet or be very righteous. Someone who does is clearly a saint.
David and I discussed it yesterday, and he put it this way: it’s easy to tell if a sepulcher has been painted white.
How often do we truly see someone’s heart? If they’re living Christlike lives, of course some of that will be outwardly visible. But unless I broadcast it (which Jesus actively discourages) nobody will know what I am fasting, praying, giving of my substance to the poor and needy, diligently studying the scriptures, mourning with those that mourn, comforting those that need comfort, doing family history or temple work, or any other number of ways I could show love for God and God’s children.
But it’s VERY clear if I’m using the right terminology.
And that is the thing too many people are fixating on.
We can–and arguably should–use the correct name of the church. We also need to be cautious of making that our priority, turning it into a golden calf that replaces following the Savior’s example to the best of our ability.
I learned this as a child reading C.S. Lewis’ The Last Battle. Murder in Aslan’s name actually serves Tash. Kindness committed to Tash actually honors Aslan. Or, as Jesus himself says in Matthew 7:22-23:
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
The JST even changes it to say, “ye never knew me.” You never got to the know the person whose name you claimed.
I honestly don’t really care what other people call me. The semantics just don’t matter that much. What matters is that I know by what name I am called and who I’m trying to be like.
Leave a Reply