WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Is "Mormonism" Misunderstood Because of Its Unpopular Title?

WHAT'S in a name? So asked one who has been called the chief of English bards; and hosts of thoughtful minds have been conscious of the same insistent query springing up as a conception original to each. Who but the superficial will venture to deny the influence of names? We are all subject to the witchery of bias and of prejudice for or against; and the odium or the good repute of a name ofttimes determines our provisional acceptance or rejection of that for which it stands.

Most of us are in the habit of putting up our knowledge in little packages, duly ticketed. These we stow away in more or less orderly fashion, and though we glance betimes at the label we are apt to forget what any one of the parcels really contains.

"Mormonism" is an unpopular name; the truths for which it stands, the principles which it embodies, are more readily believed in if left unlabeled.

It should be borne in mind that the term "Mormon" with its several variants was first applied by way of nickname to the people now so designated. But nicknames may be so sanctified by effort and achievement that they become titles of respect and profound significance. To this fact history lends definite and abundant testimony.

The term "Christian" was first applied as an epithet of contempt. You know how it was hurled in hatred and disdain at the disciples in Antioch. See Acts 11:26. Yet the followers of Christ accepted the name and hallowed it by sacrifice and righteous deeds; and today the world counts but one distinction greater than being called a Christian, and that is to be a Christian in fact.

The "Mormon" people do not resent the misnomer by which they are commonly known, and which has been put upon them by popular usage. They deplore, however, the possible misunderstanding that the Church to which they belong professes to be the church of Mormon. It should be known that Mormon was a man, a very distinguished and a very able man it is true, an eminent prophet and historian according to the record bearing his name, but a man nevertheless. The "Mormon" Church affirms itself to be in no sense the church of Mormon, nor the church of Joseph Smith, nor of Brigham Young, nor of any man other than the Savior and Redeemer of the race. The true name of this Church, the designation by which it is officially known is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is an age of multitudinous sects, cults, and religious societies in general, and the number increases year by year. Strictly speaking a sect is a branch or offshoot of a primary institution, and in this sense numerous sects have arisen and others may arise, all professing something in common though differing in particulars ofttimes to the point of antagonism.

Most of the existing sects designate themselves as "churches" with a distinctive forename to each. As the term "church" in its ordinary and broad usage is a common possession, unprotected by letters patent or other guaranty of exclusiveness, its general employment as an alternative for "sects" or cognate nouns is no breach of law, order or custom.

Narrowing our consideration to that of churches professing Christianity, we meet the question as to whether there can be two or more diverse sects, opposed to each other in essentials of belief and practise, and both or all be in reality the Church of Jesus Christ. Can a church that is divided against itself, or a multitude of sects with discordant doctrines and conflicting claims to priestly authority, be one and all the same church, and that the Church of God?

The question has been answered by the churches themselves; and their emphatic reply in the negative is expressed in the names by which these organizations have chosen to be known. Some have elected to be called after the names of their founders or eminent promoters, as Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans, Campbellites. Others proclaim by their self-chosen titles a preference for appellations denoting some descriptive feature of their plan of organization or governmental system, as Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational. Yet others attach so great significance to distinctive points of doctrine as to make that the mark of identity, such as Unitarian, Trinitarian, Universalist, Baptist.

None of us can consistently challenge the vested right of religious associations to choose their own names. Moreover, the designations of existing sects, with few exceptions, are self-explanatory, significantly expressive, and eminently appropriate. In general the names tell, as explicitly as any brief title could do, just what the respective sect, society or church professes to be.

Organizations planned and operated for individual and social betterment, whether known as churches or otherwise, are commendable institutions. Inasmuch as membership therein is a matter of personal choice, no objection should be raised against rules established by common consent or majority decision for the admission of new applicants or for the discipline of members, provided, of course, that such rules be administered without infringement upon the rights of outsiders.

But can any association of men, conceived and effected on human initiative, be anything other than an earthly institution, even though its aims be lofty and its activities the most praiseworthy?

The Church of Jesus Christ, as an institution both earthly and heavenly, that is to say having vital relation to mortal life and to eternity, cannot have been originated at human instance. That church is not the fruitage of man's planting, neither the offshoot of other and older institutions. The Church of Jesus Christ, therefore, is not, nor can it be, a sect.

The Book of Mormon affirms that the Lord Jesus Christ, shortly after His ascension in Judea, visited the early inhabitants of the Western Continent and established His Church amongst them. As He had done in Galilee, so in America. He chose and ordained Twelve Disciples, to whom He gave authority to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, which, as the Lord taught, are essential to salvation. He very clearly set forth that His Church was to be rightly named, as the following record attests.

The Twelve, whom He had commissioned to build up the Church, prayed for instruction, saying: "Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this Church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter." And the Resurrected Lord, there present in visible Person, answered them in this wise:

"Verily, verily I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing? Have they not read the Scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day. And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day. Therefore whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the Church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name, that He will bless the Church for my sake. And how be it my Church, save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses' name, then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man, then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name, then it is my Church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel." (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 27.)

The members of the Church aver that the distinguishing features of their religious system, in short, the essentials of the philosophy of "Mormonism" are epitomized in the name of their organization—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If the name be used without Divine warrant, its assumption can not fail to be regarded as a sacrilege; if it has been authoritatively bestowed one need look no further for explanation of the vitality exhibited by the Church in so impressive a degree from the day of its organization to the present.