the Christian symbolism of the name 'Mormon'

preface

A quick preface: This is a post that I originally wrote nearly two years ago for By Common Consent. Lately, it’s been bugging me that I don’t have a version of it up on my own site, and since I haven’t had a lot of time this week to write anything original, I’m going to repost this here.

This post elaborates on one of my favorite close readings of the Book of Mormon. It surprises me that in his criticism of the word “Mormon,” Russell Nelson seems to think that the name originates with the character named Mormon rather than the place that he’s named after (within the narrative of the Book of Mormon)—and the implicit reasons he’s named after that place. For years, I’ve been interested in the way that the history of the word “Mormon” within the narrative of the book that bears its name serves as a symbol of baptism; more recently, I’ve grown to appreciate the way that it refers more broadly to Christian redemption.

I also like this reading for the way that it draws wide the power of Christ’s redemption and the way that it raises questions about the source of religious authority, both of which trouble the Latter-day Saint assumptions that I grew up with. The Book of Mormon is most useful when we let its stories trouble us and reshape our beliefs rather than when we assume it supports what we already believe.

post

The name “Mormon” is obviously connected to The Book of Mormon, but this name carries different meanings within and outside the text. The external, often derogatory, meaning is enough that the three largest denominations accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture now reject the derived adjective “Mormon,” often preferring to redirect attention to their Christian credentials. This is understandable—and even laudable—but the meaning and history of this name within The Book of Mormon suggests that “Mormon” is, in fact, a deeply Christian word.

“Mormon” also seems to begin as a derogatory term in The Book of Mormon. In Mosiah 18:4 (9:32 CofC), we read of a “place which was called Mormon, having received its name from the king, being in the borders of the land having been infested, by times or at seasons, by wild beasts.” There’s no straightforward explanation here of what “Mormon” means—our identically named narrator might be too embarrassed to do so. Nonetheless, the implication is that “Mormon” is a name kings give to infested places, places no one would go unless they were desperate, places so undesirable that the king’s servants might not look for you there.

Of course, it so happens that Alma—a debauched priest turned enemy of the state—is desperate enough to turn to such a place, and there’s something about him that attracts hundreds of people. Since hearing Abinadi speak in King Noah’s court, Alma has had a powerful encounter with Jesus Christ. That encounter was evidently enough for people to want to come out and meet him—even if it means going to a place undesirable enough to be called “Mormon” to associate with a fugitive. Perhaps they too wish to encounter this Jesus who has enough power and grace to wipe away the sins of a debauched priest. Indeed, Alma is confident enough in his own experience to promise those he baptizes “eternal life, through the redemption of Christ” (Mosiah 18:13/9:44).

This call to Jesus’s redemption soon extends beyond the debauched priest and even beyond his followers to also cover the derisive name “Mormon” itself. Our narrator now (self-servingly) repeats this name over and over: “all this was done in Mormon, yea, by the waters of Mormon, in the forest that was near the waters of Mormon, yea, the place of Mormon, the waters of Mormon, the forest of Mormon, how beautiful are they to the eyes of them who there came to the knowledge of their Redeemer” (Mosiah 18:30/9:65-66). It is a reminder of how unexpectedly beautiful this name has become, and how powerfully it symbolizes Christ’s redemption.

It is difficult to overstate the importance in the Book of Mormon narrative of this now-collective encounter with the redeeming power of Jesus Christ. Consider the difference between Limhi and Alma, both prominent refugees from a failed colony of overzealous oddballs. When Limhi arrives in Zarahemla, he seems to defer to Mosiah and give up any claims to political power. Mosiah is established as a prophet, seer, and revelator, so we might expect Alma (who is unordained and has a history of debauchery) to follow Limhi’s lead. Not so—there’s something about Alma and his followers’ testimony of redemption through Jesus that is powerful enough that they quickly take over the Nephite religion.

It is Alma’s church, founded in an undesirable place called “Mormon” and there infused with Christ’s redeeming love, that survives the next century more-or-less intact until the resurrected Christ Himself visits the land of Bountiful. That visit is frequently—and justifiably—described as the climax of the Book of Mormon narrative. Consider, however, that our narrator and his father, living centuries after this visit, are not named “Bountiful”—for this family, “Mormon” appears to be the most compelling reminder of the promise of redemption through Jesus Christ.

My argument here is not that all Book of Mormon-believing Christians should call themselves “Mormon.” There’s enough real historical baggage that it would be rude to suggest that members of the Missouri-based Community of Christ or the Pennsylvania-based Church of Jesus Christ embrace the term; likewise, its story is long enough that I can’t blame members of the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for not wanting to repeat it every time they want to prove their Christian credentials. Yet, it would be a tragedy if we forgot (or never even learned!) how “Mormon” symbolizes deep Christian commitment—or if we prevented people from again redeeming that name to apply it to themselves.

• macro
• Communities
• Christianity
• Mormon
• waters of Mormon
• Mormonism
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Alma
• Limhi
• Mosiah
• Book of Mormon
• redemption