I never knew that the LDS church underwent a number of name changes before settling on "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
I was reminded recently of the great pride I always felt in announcing I was part of the church that bore the name of Jesus Christ. In my eyes it was quite literally the church of Jesus Christ, because the name said so. It always seemed church authorities put great importance on this; there was a primary song devoted to it, seminary lessons highlighted the name's divine origin, and the missionary discussions I taught had a section devoted to teaching the meaning of the church's name. Perhaps this focus is due in part because the name is often used in rebutting the accusation that Mormons are not "Christians"... for how could they not be Christians if Jesus' name is on the sign outside. When speaking of convincing non-members of the church's Christian status Boyd Packer said, "Consider the name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." ("The Peaceable Followers of Christ", Ensign, Apr 1998, 62)
Despite the importance placed on the name of the church and its alleged divinity, the name apparently was/is not set in stone. Instead it evolved over time, changing three times in its first eight years. When the church was established in 1830 it was known officially as "The Church of Christ" (D&C 20). In 1834 the name was changed to "The Church of Latter Day Saints" (History of the Church 2:62). In 1836 the name was changed to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Name of the Church"). Then in 1838 the church adopted the more accurate grammar (with hyphen-little-d) of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (D&C 115). This does not include differences from references in the Bible and Book of Mormon.
There is some argument over why modern revelation was disregarded for a new name. Apologists from SHIELDS have given their opinions of why these changes were permitted. Critics have given their views and questions surrounding the name changes.
Ultimately, I suppose the name itself (and the changing thereof) does not have direct influence on the truthfulness of doctrine. However if this is the case, the name should not be touted as such an inspired label. Church leaders should avoid holding it up as anything more than a name, unlike Russell Nelson in a talk devoted entirely to deconstructing the name of the church, without mention of the evolution of the name. Surprising considering his passive-aggressive condemnation for those who use anything other than "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" [ie "Mormon"] saying, "Before any other name is considered to be a legitimate substitute, the thoughtful person might reverently consider the feelings of the Heavenly Parent who bestowed that name." ("Thus Shall My Church Be Called" Ensign, May 1990, 16)
No, the fact that I did not know this bit of church history does not prove the falsehood of the church, but it does make me wish I had been more careful in my confidence of proclaiming the church name.
I was reminded recently of the great pride I always felt in announcing I was part of the church that bore the name of Jesus Christ. In my eyes it was quite literally the church of Jesus Christ, because the name said so. It always seemed church authorities put great importance on this; there was a primary song devoted to it, seminary lessons highlighted the name's divine origin, and the missionary discussions I taught had a section devoted to teaching the meaning of the church's name. Perhaps this focus is due in part because the name is often used in rebutting the accusation that Mormons are not "Christians"... for how could they not be Christians if Jesus' name is on the sign outside. When speaking of convincing non-members of the church's Christian status Boyd Packer said, "Consider the name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." ("The Peaceable Followers of Christ", Ensign, Apr 1998, 62)
Despite the importance placed on the name of the church and its alleged divinity, the name apparently was/is not set in stone. Instead it evolved over time, changing three times in its first eight years. When the church was established in 1830 it was known officially as "The Church of Christ" (D&C 20). In 1834 the name was changed to "The Church of Latter Day Saints" (History of the Church 2:62). In 1836 the name was changed to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Name of the Church"). Then in 1838 the church adopted the more accurate grammar (with hyphen-little-d) of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (D&C 115). This does not include differences from references in the Bible and Book of Mormon.
There is some argument over why modern revelation was disregarded for a new name. Apologists from SHIELDS have given their opinions of why these changes were permitted. Critics have given their views and questions surrounding the name changes.
Ultimately, I suppose the name itself (and the changing thereof) does not have direct influence on the truthfulness of doctrine. However if this is the case, the name should not be touted as such an inspired label. Church leaders should avoid holding it up as anything more than a name, unlike Russell Nelson in a talk devoted entirely to deconstructing the name of the church, without mention of the evolution of the name. Surprising considering his passive-aggressive condemnation for those who use anything other than "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" [ie "Mormon"] saying, "Before any other name is considered to be a legitimate substitute, the thoughtful person might reverently consider the feelings of the Heavenly Parent who bestowed that name." ("Thus Shall My Church Be Called" Ensign, May 1990, 16)
No, the fact that I did not know this bit of church history does not prove the falsehood of the church, but it does make me wish I had been more careful in my confidence of proclaiming the church name.
Posts
