Happypeople

Mormon Isn’t Our Name. Why Are Some Still Using It?

Two years since President Nelson requested discontinuation of the term “Mormon” to describe the Church, some journalists still opt to use it. Why?

In 1831, one year after the founding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the public came up with a new term for the so-called “proselytes of the Golden Bible”: Mormons. 

The nickname, of course, refers to the Book of Mormon, which members of the Church consider scripture alongside the Bible. During the early years of the faith, more often than not the term Mormon was used pejoratively. 

While the Church has gone through periods of embracing the term “Mormon” (for example, the “I’m a Mormon” campaign), in October 2018, Russell M. Nelson, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced a new emphasis on the full name of the Church, including a specific and explicit request to stop using the term “Mormon” as an identifier for the faith altogether. President Nelson made reference to Latter-day Saint scripture which states: “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Since President Nelson’s announcement, most changes have involved institutional shifts, including dropping “Mormon” from “Mormon Tabernacle Choir,” changing Mormon.org to ComeUntoChrist.org, and ending the “I’m a Mormon” campaign. Church members, meanwhile, have begun referring to themselves as Latter-day Saints or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

The Church also released an updated style guide requesting that media no longer use “Mormon” or “LDS.” By March of 2019, the Associated Press style guide, the standard for news journalists, endorsed many of the same recommendations. How has the press done with regard to following the Church’s request and the AP’s recommendations?

Together with the Elizabeth McCune Institute, we looked at coverage of the Church for a five-month period between July 15, 2019, and December 15, 2019, by the twenty largest news websites in the United States. What we found was that journalists who wrote negative articles about the Church or its members were more likely to use the term “Mormon” than other style guide terms. 

Methodology and Limitations

We limited our analysis to the twenty largest websites. Articles were analyzed to determine how they complied with the Church’s style-guide recommendations. We categorized the articles based on whether or not they included positive, negative, or neutral editorial content about the Church. Our examination relied entirely on written web content—excluding other ways many people receive news today (television, print newspaper). We also didn’t look at the outlets that report on the Church most often, such as the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News, or various blogs and other forums. Thus, the study doesn’t attempt to assess how readers are experiencing the name of the Church on the web generally, but rather how national journalists and writers at widely read outlets are choosing to represent the name of the Church. 

Using the Full Name of The Church

Between July 15, 2019, and December 14, 2019, the twenty largest news websites in the United States published 421 articles that referenced the Church. Two hundred sixty-five of the articles focused significant attention on the Church; 156 included only incidental mentions (e.g. “A robbery occurred across the street from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”).

Overall, 180 of the 421 articles (43%) adhered in large measure to the Church’s style guide recommendations. With regard to articles that focused more directly on the Church only about 94 of 265 articles (35%) adhered to the style guide recommendations. Among the full-set of articles, 52 of the articles refer to the Church in the article’s title. Of those, 5 (10%) refer to the Church according to any of the style-guide recommended names for the Church, 4 (8%) refer to the “LDS Church.” The remaining 43 (83%) used the term “Mormon.” 

While some journalists and outlets are correctly using the recommended name of the Church, many are still using the term “Mormon,” particularly in headlines. Why has the usage standard been adopted in some cases but not in others? 

Some of these findings may involve different standards across publications. It’s also possible that different writers vary in their level of understanding about the Church’s name. We also explored another possibility in our analysis.  Among the 180 articles that followed the Church’s recommended style guide, 10 (6%) included negative editorial content. In comparison, of the 240 articles that did not follow the recommended style guide, 70 (29%) included negative editorial content. 

There is a marked correlation between using the term Mormon and negative editorial content about the Church.

In other words, if you encountered an article in the popular press with negative editorial content about the Church between July 15 and December 15, 2019, there was an 86% chance (69 of 80) that it included the word “Mormon.” Whereas if you read an article during this same period that mentioned the Church without negative editorial content the word “Mormon” was only used 46% of the time (157 of 341). From the five-month data set we analyzed, there is a marked correlation between using the term Mormon and negative editorial content about the Church. 

Sentiment Analysis Across the Data Set

In our analysis, we also looked at articles that were either neutral or positive. Those articles were much more likely to refer to the Church as recommended by the recent style-guide. Again, by comparison, articles suggesting that the Church or its actions were negative in some way tended to use the term Mormon more frequently. 

This is true even comparing similar articles from the same outlet where one follows the Church’s guideline and the other does not. For instance, the LA times carried an article profiling Ronald Spongberg, a successful restaurant franchisee and also an active member of the Church.  Along with its neutral to positive tone about the Church, the article uses its full name near the end of the article.  

In comparison, another LA Times article about director Britt Poulton’s film Them That Follow discusses how Poulson “really struggled” growing up in the Church. Along with its negative discussion of the Church, this article uses the word “Mormon” early in the piece. Poulson uses the full name of the Church in describing her religious background in other pieces, such as this “Women in Hollywood” interview

The way different publications approach the same story can also be illuminating. When Ed Smart, father of Elizabeth Smart, came out as gay, reports of the story that included negative editorializing regarding the Church such as NBC News’ story, used the word “Mormon” more frequently, while reporting that focused on other elements of the story and did not include negative editorializing, such as USA Today’s story, largely used the Church’s full name.    

What we looked at is only a snapshot in time, and will require further study to examine how journalists and news outlets choose to represent the Church across media platforms and over a longer period of time.

Use of the Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints study

Data Set 

About the author

C.D. Cunningham

C.D. Cunningham is a founder and editor-at-large of Public Square magazine.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Is it Time for Latter-day Saints to Support Same-Sex Marriage?

I wanted to thank Blair Hodges for calling attention to an article we ran earlier this year by Professor Robert P. George.  Blair has been a frequent critic of the magazine, and we appreciate his engagement and efforts in drawing attention to the work we’re doing. As one of the pre-eminent political philosophers working today, Professor George’s decision to publish with us was a major sign of legitimacy.  Hodge’s article was, in many ways, perceptive. He noticed that Professor George, and by extension, many of our editors here, is concerned that many people, especially religious people, struggle to justify their beliefs about family, marriage, and sexuality through anything other than appeals to religious authority. (We kindly disagree that these positions are anti-LGBT+ as Blair describes them.) And he’s right about that motivation. Church leaders have been very clear about the doctrine of the family for more than a generation, as we highlighted earlier this year. But where the cultural messaging on sexuality is so dominant, it’s easy for Latter-day Saints to feel overwhelmed and struggle to explain to others why they accept what prophet leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach what they do.   And Hodges is right that we hope to make a difference in this regard with our work. But otherwise, his article falls into the same traps of many before him that George and others have largely dealt with. Conflating “Hyper-Individualism” with “Expressive-Individualism” Hodges attempts to address George’s concern with individualism. But he makes a category error. Individualism, as Hodges uses it, seems to be a synonym for selfish. Individualism, as George uses it, means how we define the individual. These are two substantially different concepts. On this basis, Hodges raises concerns about hyper-individualism (hyper-selfish)—pointing out this issue is no more relevant to LGBT+ issues than to anyone else. That’s a fine argument to make, but it really has nothing to do with the point George makes. His point being, how we define the individual is of crucial importance to issues of sexuality. Because today the predominant cultural approach to defining the self is expressive individualism. Expressive individualism is a philosophy that holds that who we are is defined by what we feel we are at our psychological core. And that the greatest good is expressing that psychological core to the world, including through our behavior.  As described by Carl Trueman in his recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, this idea has its roots in the work of Romantic philosophers like Jean-Jaques Rousseau and like-minded poets, literary figures, and artists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but largely took off in the 1960s at the beginning of the sexual revolution. Expressive individualism has substantially become our culture’s default approach to defining identity. But many Christians push back on this idea as we choose to make our central identities based on a different foundation.  As articulated by President Nelson in a recent devotional for young adults, he explained that the three identities we should prioritize (and not allow to be obscured) are 1) Child of God 2) Child of the Covenant 3) Disciple of Christ As Latter-day Saints, then, we choose to make those our central identities and base our choices on that foundation.  Hodges also suspects that “queerness would be less ‘central’ to a person’s identity the less social pressure and regulation they’d face about it.”  But what does Hodges mean by less central? If identity powerfully influences the choices we make, then the less central an identity, the less influence it has over our choices. These choices include why, how, when, and with whom someone has sexual relations. Prioritizing disciple of Christ and child of the covenant as identities, as Russell M. Nelson suggests, would lead to different choices about sex than prioritizing sexuality as identity. Love and Disagreement One of Hodges’ main requests is that George “spent more time saying how a person can be loving towards someone while also condemning an important part of their identity.” In our view, this is a tired argument in an already wearisome conversation. Sexuality is not an inevitably central part of identity.  Our editorial team falls across the political spectrum. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite having serious concerns with that political part of our identity.  Our editorial team are all Latter-day Saints. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite harboring serious questions about the important religious part of our identity. We’ve also felt loved by people who thought it was a dangerous and outdated idea not to have sex until marriage, constituting an important part of all our sexual identities. But Hodges’ argument suggests it’s somehow impossible to love someone while having honest concerns about how they prioritize the sexual part of their identity.  But of course, it’s not. Not only is it possible, but Christian believers are under clear command to love those we disagree with.  It’s those who demand “you can’t love me unless you agree with my paradigm for identity” that are preaching an extreme and radically alternative  approach to tolerance in a pluralistic society, not those who say, “I love you, but I disagree.” That has been the durable default of pluralistic tolerance that has helped make our diverse nation possible. Race and Sexuality Blair also goes to the old tired well of comparing race and sexuality. This is a comparison that many civil rights activists have rejected.  Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, and William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, the organization Martin Luther King Jr. started, have rejected the connection between sexuality and race in civil rights.  In fact, George takes on Blair’s point at length in his article in Harvard’s Journal of Law and Public Policy: Revisionists today miss this central question—what is marriage? when they equate traditional marriage laws with laws banning interracial marriage. … But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to

Learning in a Time of Plague

During a pandemic, it’s tempting to think that it is somehow misguided to be focusing on education. C.S. Lewis boldly and beautifully suggests otherwise.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!