,

Requiem for the Mormon Tribe

Jonathan Green

•

Of all the changes introduced during the prophetic ministry of Russell M. Nelson, one of the most consequential may be the determined and consistent rejection of the Mormon ethnonym. That decision was a turning point that enabled some future paths and closed off others, just as ending polygamy opened a path into the American mainstream and foreclosed an alternate path of Amish-like rejection of modernity.

So let me just say that I think we would have made a pretty great tribe. Much like modern Judaism, we could have formed a diverse but distinct people with a set of devout religious believers at its core, some fundamentalist sects and heterodox offshoots, various reformed associations, and a large gathering of secularized Mormons who would celebrate their cultural ties on Pioneer Day, maybe make an effort to attend services occasionally and have their children blessed and baptized, but mostly valued their tribal allegiance more than adherence to any religious tenets. We could have had much the same pageants, museums, and historical sites to commemorate our victories and losses from the time of our emergence as a distinct patch on the American ethnic quilt. Only the devout core would have needed to take the Word of Wisdom and all the rest of the quaint lifestyle guidelines so seriously, but everyone could still cheer for the BYU football team and look back proudly on their ancestors’ accomplishments in withstanding hardship as they valiantly settled the American West.

My enthusiasm is genuine. Of course I would have been one of those dreary devout Mormons who was resolutely determined to be holier than thou, but a Mormon tribe would have created natural ways for people to retain ties to their community without the burden of religious belief and practice. If attending services weekly is a drag, just come for Easter and Christmas and the Primary program, and be sure to catch the prophet’s address at General Conference, and you’re good for another year. I like Mormons, and I like the name Mormon as an easy descriptor for the wonderfully earnest lifestyle we invented and the tidy green communities our ancestors built in the desert.

But Russell M. Nelson said, in effect: No, not that. As the Mormon tribe, you cannot accomplish the work the Lord set in motion through Joseph Smith. It is time to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ, and not something else, however attractive it may be.

I was surprised by how quickly and thoroughly the Church dropped the use of “Mormon” in most contexts. I think “Mormon” still has its uses as a cultural referent; as Ardis said, we don’t need to invoke the name of the Savior every time we discuss jello recipes. On the other hand, “Mormon Church” really does sound offensive now and should be banished from publishing style guides.

In any case, it’s a done deal. We’re not going back, any more than we are going to unflood the Earth with the Book of Mormon or undot the globe with temples. We’re not going to be the Mormon tribe, at least not any time this century, so it’s time to get down to the serious business of being the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

Comments

18 responses to “Requiem for the Mormon Tribe”

  1. Stephen Fleming

    Completely disagree.

  2. E

    I’m not sure it’s a done deal. I think we probably are going back, at least to some extent.

  3. RL

    The essence of focusing on the actual name is that we get to define who we are. When the gunman began attacking worshiping members, he was attacking the Church of Jesus Christ.

    As we define the future, members across the world are bonded more and self defined more by their fellowship in Christ than the history of how we were defined in the Midwest and Mountain West as pioneers or named after one of our scriptures that outsiders don’t read in general.

    President Nelson tipped the scale but I think becoming a people that read the Book of Mormon more focused our Christianity.

    Agree there are times where it’s more difficult or more words to describe or explain meaning. But at other times it empowers and directs us in prophetic ways.

  4. RL

    Also the 107 days „we’re not going back“ reference is interesting. She said „When we fight we win“ too. She explained this is true, but the fight hasn’t ended yet. As President Nelson said:
    “The best is yet to come … because the Savior is coming again. The best is yet to come because the Lord is hastening His work. The best is yet to come as we fully turn our hearts and our lives to Jesus Christ.”

  5. Kent Larsen

    Just last night I was writing a proposal that referenced Armand Mauss’ “The Angel and the Beehive” — which talks about the tension you’re hinting at here. Of course we need to be distinctive, but we also need to be approachable and have basic things in common with those around us. Without those commonalities, we are just an isolated tribe, an oddity without influence on others.

    I suspect an element of this same tension exists between any smaller group within the national or global culture. Without anything that keeps the group distinctive, it disappears; and without anything that ties it to the outside culture, the group becomes either irrelevant or something that must be eradicated.

    It may well be that the prophetic task involves navigating this tension—figuring out how to maintain distinctiveness while also increasing the ability to reach others.

  6. Jonathan Green

    Stephen F., which parts do you completely disagree with? Do you think we would have made a bad tribe, or that we are actually heading back to being Mormons, or what?

  7. John Mansfield

    The hypothesized Mormon tribe sounds a lot like half of the members of my ward in Las Vegas when I was a youth 40-odd years ago. People who never came to Sunday services, but liked the Church, were glad when the home teachers would visit, and all their neighbors knew they were Mormons.

    More significantly, it sounds like Russell Nelson’s parents.

    Gordon Hinckley when in the First Presidency would repeatedly start off a Conference talk with some memory of being a child or youth in Salt Lake City. He was someone who had been nurtured by his community and was grateful for it. Russell Nelson in contrast apparently received no benefit from all the church community apparatus around him: Primary, deacons’ quorums, wards, bishops, scoutmasters, and M-Men. He had to get himself to a bookstore downtown to lay his hands on a Book of Mormon, develop himself spiritually with no care from any leader or teacher ever mentioned, not baptized until age 16. The Mormon tribe apparently didn’t do much of anything for him.

  8. Stephen Fleming

    I do want to avoid being argumentative, so my apologies, but here goes. I think “don’t say Mormon” was a very bad idea and don’t think it had that much effect. Again, my apologies.

  9. REC911

    Clearly Nelson had a pet peeve with the word Mormon for a long while. The 16 leaders before him did not. I am fascinated that the members have latched on to it being a victory for satan. A swear word of sorts. Saying the words “victory for satan” over the pulpit was probably worse than saying mormon…

    Now when I attend sacrament meetings, instead of welcome to church, I have to hear welcome to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Do we really need to say the full name to ourselves? Way over the top IMO.

    And how do members, who believe mormon is bad, reconcile in their minds that the last 16 leaders were wrong and Nelson got it right? Huh? We are a funny people.

    If Oaks makes mormon ok again are members going to be excited for the new revelation? I think Oaks is going to put some things in place behind the scenes where the president cant just change whatever they want as Nelson clearly did. If these policy changes were understood by members in general as just that, policy changes and not revelations, no big deal but like the mormon word, members treat it as doctrine. Not good IMO.

  10. Jack

    I think we might see the day when the church becomes the flagship for all those who believe in a literal Jesus.

  11. Jonathan Green

    Stephen, no apology needed. You could be right. Maybe we’ll all go back to being Mormons this weekend, or a few years down the road. I don’t think so, but we’ll see! As for whether it was good or bad, there are certainly trade-offs to be considered.

    REC911, it’s really not difficult for church members to make sense of. When Ezra Taft Benson told us we needed to stop neglecting the Book of Mormon, we didn’t take it as an accusation against Spencer Kimball or David O. McKay. It was new prophetic counsel, and that’s a good thing. It’s what we tune into conference for.

    I don’t think the policy change vs. revelation distinction holds up well in practice. One could say: First we were going north, then they told us to go east, but now they tell us to go north again; clearly our leaders are just making up policy as they go along. But if the overarching revelation is to drive from St. George to Minneapolis, then taking I-15, I-80, and I-35 is one of the simpler routes.

  12. Dsc

    REC911, I don’t think you’re accurately capturing the views of the prior 16 president’s of the Church when it comes to the use of “Mormon”. Sure, some seemed to embrace the term, but there is a long history Church leadership encouraging the use of the full name of the Church in certain contexts and actively discouraging the use of “Mormon” in some contexts. For example, “Mormon Church” has not been acceptable usage according to a Church style guide for at least three decades (likely much longer), which includes actively discouraging the use of the term by media organizations. “Latter-day Saints” has been the preferred way to refer to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for as long as I’ve been paying attention to Church media interactions. This includes during the “I’m a Mormon” campaign.

  13. RLD

    Seems to me that a core part of being a tribe is that you’re born into it and you can never leave. That’s what gives people space to participate at whatever level they want, or form groups that do their membership in the tribe differently, because they’ll always be part of the tribe.

    Theologically, that’s never been an option for us. Culturally, we have some elements of it, like counting people as members whether they participate or not. But for better AND worse we’ve always made it clear that some level of commitment is expected and made people feel uncomfortable if they’re not willing to give it.

    Historically, there have been multiple times that Church leaders have pushed us away from being a tribe and emphasized that membership in the kingdom comes with expectations. The “Mormon Reformation” would be Exhibit A. I was pretty young when President Kimball was prophet, but that seemed like another with his constant emphasis on doing things (“Plant a garden!” “Keep a journal!” “Paint your house!”). I agree that dropping the name “Mormon” falls in that category by emphasizing what we believe and what we do over our history. But it’s another nudge in a direction we’ve been going for a long time.

  14. LHL

    Personally, I believe the whole “Mormon” debacle was nothing more than the result of President Nelson’s generational pet peeve with the word. Despite countless on-line protestations (many of which being embarrasingly childish in their petulance) the word “Mormon” has not disappeared; nor will it.

    Now that President Nelson has gone on to his reward; I doubt that this particular “burr under his saddle” will be focused upon going forward; and honestly, I’m glad for it. All in all it’s been a rather silly exercise that has not been a positive reflection on our tribe.

    Honestly, I’m still with President Hinckley on this one: “Mormon is simply a word that connotes Do. Good” Nothing more, Nothing less.

  15. jader3rd

    John Mansfield, that’s a rather insightful comment. I suspect it’s somewhat hard for someone who got themselves to church, to not expect others to do the same. They mentally can acknowledge the importance of helping others, but it’s probably not as natural for them.
    My grandfather has a somewhat similar story. He was baptized, but was in an inactive family. At the age of 14 he decided that he had better start attending church. So he walked himself to church. There was none of the typical proactive Home Teacher, or Youth Group rallying around him, that we like to share stories of. Just one day, he made the decision it was something to do, so he started doing it, and did it for the rest of his life.

  16. 0t

    I’m happy to leave the name Mormon behind…I was never comfortable with it and in a weird back-reaching sort of way it seems to demean Mormon himself, whom I do not think considered that his name might be used as shorthand for the full name of the church or quite possibly even for the book he abridged.

    I’m a bit bothered by some scholars clinging to the name. It’s not the same as, but has a similar resonance to, using someone’s deadname. I’ve read it in the context of “historical mormonism” or “all the collective groups and offshoots”… but “Latter-day Saint movement(s)” is perfectly serviceable.

    I hope we don’t see a lot of backsliding after RMN’s passing.

  17. Paul Brown

    I’m a Mormon. I come from a long line of Mormon ancestors. Whether or not I continue to attend and practice, I will be part of the Mormon tribe during my time in Mortality.

    Nelson’s hobby horse of attempting to erase “Mormon” from our vocabulary came after decades of chafing after his conference talk on the subject was swatted down by Hinckley. It was his surgeon’s “Now is the Day of My Power” response.

  18. JWL

    Jonathan –

    While there is no doubt that LDS in the western U.S. had taken on some characteristics of an ethno-religious tribe (I think a prominent non-LDS sociologist argued that – O’Dea or DePillis maybe?), that characterization of the LDS religion and church was rejected long before Russell Nelson was on the scene. Zion is in your home country and stakes was being advocated in the 1960s and 1970s, if not earlier. So I suggest your point is both old news and misattributed. What is significant about the effects of the Nelson administration is the conflict between “church” (meaning institutional forms, rites, procedures, hierarchy) and community (meaning the social cohesion grounded in the Christian service of local church units and some sense of history and tradition beyond just doctrine). The historic genius of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was its ability to combine both church (such as the temple) and real community (such as in the ward). However, as J Mansfield points out above, Russell Nelson personally never experienced the Church as community, only as a system of rites and doctrines. Perhaps as a result, he emphasized the “churchy” aspects of the Church and, and perhaps not intentionally, down played the Church’s community building features (no more roadshows, pageants, outdoorsy youth programs, etc.). And I would argue that the community building features of the Restored Church are very distinct from the ethno-religious tribal aspects you discussed. They were as enthusiastically embraced in the new international Church full of converts as in any western U.S. ward full of people who could trace their ancestry in the Church back into the 1800s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.