Mormonism Research Ministry

Can We Still Use the Term “Mormon”?

—

Aaron Shafovaloff

Are we morally obligated to abandon terminology we have used for nearly two centuries?

In August 2018, Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, announced they would no longer use the terms “LDS” or “Mormon” except in connection with proper nouns like the Book of Mormon.1 Nelson declared that using nicknames for the church represents a “major victory for Satan” because such usage removes the Savior’s name.2 The church subsequently renamed over 1,000 products, redirected Mormon.org to ChurchofJesusChrist.org, and even renamed its famous choir from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square.3

This directive has created questions for Christians who engage with Latter-day Saints. In this article I suggest that Christians may, with prudence and wisdom, continue using the term “Mormon” in good conscience.

Reasons for Continued Use

The directive itself is internally inconsistent.

Nelson’s instruction asks us to avoid not only the word “Mormon” but also the phrase “LDS Church.” If we are conscience-bound to defer to every terminological request from LDS leadership, then we cannot even use the abbreviation “LDS.” But this term that has been standard in academic, journalistic, and interfaith contexts for decades. The sweeping scope of the demand asserts broad control over language.

Previous LDS prophets took the opposite position.

In October 1990, just six months after Nelson (then an apostle) gave a conference address urging use of the Church’s full name, President Gordon B. Hinckley delivered a talk titled “Mormon Should Mean ‘More Good.’”3 Hinckley openly acknowledged that “regardless of our efforts, we may never convert the world to general use of the full and correct name of the Church” and encouraged members to embrace the nickname rather than fight it.4 He even adopted the motto “Mormon means more good” and praised the name as one “of great honor made so by a remarkable man and a book which gives an unmatched testimony concerning the Redeemer of the world.”5 The church’s own “I’m a Mormon” advertising campaign and the 2014 film Meet the Mormons were direct outgrowths of Hinckley’s approach. Nelson’s 2018 directive effectively rebukes decades of official church practice and the explicit teaching of his predecessor.

The term carries embedded theological significance that Christians should not uncritically grant.

Latter-day Saint leaders prefer the official terms because they are not neutral. Using the full name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” or even “the Church of Jesus Christ” as a shorthand, functions to validate the claim that this organization is the Church of Jesus Christ, a claim that evangelical Christians reject. Likewise, the phrase “Restored Church of Jesus Christ” assumes the Great Apostasy narrative. These naming choices carry theological assumptions. For that reason, Christians have grounds for wisely using descriptive language.

Recognizability serves genuine communicative purposes.

As one observer noted, “When I go back to Illinois, no one knows what a ‘Latter-day Saint’ is! But they immediately know the term ‘Mormon.’” The term “Mormonism” remains far more identifiable to the general public than alternatives. Clear communication in evangelism, apologetics, and education requires using terminology that people actually understand. This is not about disrespect. It’s about clarity.

The LDS Church itself retains trademark ownership of “Mormon.”

The church’s intellectual property arm, Intellectual Reserve, Inc., holds registered trademarks for “Mormon” and actively defends them in court.6 The church has opposed trademark applications for “Mormon Match,” “Bad Mormon,” and other uses of the term.7 If the term “Mormon” was genuinely abandoned, one would expect the church to relinquish rather than protect its legal rights to the name. This retention suggests institutional hedging, an acknowledgment that the term may still prove useful.

There is no guarantee this policy will persist.

Church leaders have reversed course on terminology before. Hinckley’s embrace of “Mormon” followed earlier attempts to discourage it. Nelson’s directive could be revised or quietly abandoned under future leadership, as has happened with other prophetic emphases. Christians should be cautious about immediately overhauling their vocabulary based on policies that may not endure another thirty years.

Academic and historical scholarship continues using “Mormon.”

The academic field remains “Mormon studies,” not “Latter-day Saint studies.” The Journal of Mormon History, the Mormon Studies Review, and university positions like the “Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies” retain the traditional terminology.6 Scholars recognize that “Mormon” functions as a useful umbrella term encompassing the LDS Church, the Community of Christ, fundamentalist groups, and the broader religious tradition originating with Joseph Smith. Changing established scholarly nomenclature based on one denomination’s preference would create confusion.

News media retain “Mormon” for legitimate journalistic reasons.

The Associated Press updated its style guide in 2019 to recommend using the church’s full name on first reference, but it still permits “Mormon” and “Mormons” “when necessary for space or clarity.”7 Journalists note that “Mormon” functions efficiently as both an adjective and noun, fits headline constraints, and matches what readers actually search for online.8 A 2020 study found that even after Nelson’s announcement, 43% of national news articles followed the church’s preferred style, meaning the majority did not.9 These are not hostile choices but practical ones.

Deferring to the command completely sets a problematic precedent.

If Christians accept that they are conscience-bound to adopt whatever terminology a religious community demands, they cede significant rhetorical power. What other linguistic changes might be required next? Religious groups make many requests regarding how outsiders should speak about them. Some are reasonable, some not. Granting one organization the authority to rapidly reconstitute standard English terminology trains Christians to be pliable in ways that may not serve the truth.

The demand is framed as moral obligation, not prudential suggestion.

Nelson does not present this as a matter of suggested wisdom but as a conscience-binding judgment: using nicknames gives Satan a “major victory.” This moralized framing is precisely what Christians should resist. We can acknowledge that thoughtful language matters in gospel conversations without accepting that we are bound to heed the directives of those we regard as false prophets.

Excessive deference may actually disrespect Latter-day Saints.

Treating this request as sacred risks treating Latter-day Saints as easily offended rather than adults capable of charitable interpretation. Part of respecting people as image-bearers is expecting mature sensibilities. We expect them to understand why outsiders might not use the full institutional title or might prefer descriptive language that does not grant contested claims.

The love ethic does not require capitulation on every preference.

Latter-day Saints make numerous requests regarding outsiders’ religious sensibilities, including, historically, requests not to discuss certain temple ceremonies publicly or not to treat certain common teachings as representative. Not all such requests warrant deference. Love and respect are demonstrated through honest engagement, not through blanket accommodation of every preference. We would not consider a Latter-day Saint to be disrespectful for referring to a splinter Mormon group by a name other than its self-designated title.

Using “Mormon” signals honest positioning.

There is social value in clarity about where one stands. By using the term “Mormon,” Christians signal that they are engaging as friendly critics rather than as sycophantic or ecumenical partners. This honest positioning can actually foster more authentic dialogue. Seemingly neutral language can hide meaningful disagreement.

Overgeneralizing from prophetic statements misrepresents Mormon diversity.

Assuming that all Latter-day Saints share Nelson’s intensity about this issue ironically commits a common error: treating Mormonism as monolithic. The tradition is diverse, and many members do not feel strongly offended by traditional terminology. Ironically, insisting that we must defer to the prophet’s stated preference treats one leader’s words as more binding on the community than actual Latter-day Saints treat them on themselves.

Latter-day Saints themselves frequently disregard the directive.

In our experience, many members continue comfortably using “LDS” or “Mormon” in casual conversation. Latter-day Saints themselves are not uniformly obeying their prophet’s instruction. It seems disproportionate to expect outsiders to be more scrupulous than insiders.

Conclusion

None of this means Christians should use “Mormon” carelessly, mockingly, or without sensitivity to context. There is wisdom in being thoughtful with language, especially in personal gospel conversations where genuine relationships are at stake. In some settings, using the full name of the LDS Church may be a gesture of goodwill that opens doors.

“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (Colossians 4:6)

But wisdom is not the same as moral obligation. Christians are not conscience-bound to adopt terminology dictated by LDS leadership, particularly when that terminology embeds contested theological claims, when it lacks historical stability, when it is inconsistently followed even within the LDS community, and when it would obscure rather than clarify communication. The term “Mormon” remains a legitimate, widely understood descriptor with a long history in academic, journalistic, and religious discourse. Christians may use it in good conscience, with prudence, and with charity.

References

  1. “President Nelson Asked President Ballard to Help Correct Church’s Name. Here’s How He Led the Twelve,” Deseret News, November 16, 2023, https://www.deseret.com/2023/11/16/23953064/president-nelson-asked-president-ballard-to-help-correct-churchs-name-heres-how-he-led-the-twelve/. ↩︎
  2. Russell M. Nelson, “The Correct Name of the Church,” General Conference, October 2018, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church. ↩︎
  3. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Mormon Should Mean ‘More Good,’” General Conference, October 1990, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good. ↩︎
  4. “Guidelines for Use of Church Trademarks,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/reference/trademark-guidelines. ↩︎
  5. “‘Bad Mormon’ Trademark Case: Who Owns the Term Mormon?,” Deseret News, February 8, 2023, https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2023/2/8/23590017/bad-mormon-court-fight-church-of-jesus-christ-heather-gay-real-housewives-salt-lake/. ↩︎
  6. See, e.g., the University of Utah’s “Graduate Research Fellowship in Mormon Studies,” https://mormon.utah.edu/graduate-research-fellowship.php; the Journal of Mormon History; the Mormon Studies Review. ↩︎
  7. “AP Changes Its Style on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but ‘Mormon’ Is Not Entirely Out,” Salt Lake Tribune, March 8, 2019, https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/03/08/ap-changes-its-style/. ↩︎
  8. Jana Riess, “Why Journalists Will Keep Using the Word ‘Mormon,’” Religion News Service, March 7, 2019, https://religionnews.com/2019/03/07/why-journalists-will-keep-using-the-word-mormon/. ↩︎
  9. “Most Major News Outlets Still Use the Term ‘Mormon,’ Study Shows, Despite Church’s Wishes,” Salt Lake Tribune, September 18, 2020, https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/09/18/most-major-news-outlets/. ↩︎