”And they said unto him: 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 Lord said unto them: 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. … But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.“ (LDS 3 Nephi 27:3-8,11)
This explanation by the Lord on what his church should be called, puts the matter in perspective quite plainly. If the church is built upon the gospel of Christ, then it is Christ’s church and should be called in his name. I suppose an appropriate name would be the church of Christ or the church of Jesus Christ.
If the church is called the church of a man, then it’s the man’s church. The example given is a good man, who is a holy prophet of God, even Moses, who is called the most meek man on earth. Some may even refer to him as being a saint. Even so, it is still the church of a man.
This topic puts forward the matter of naming a church so plainly that there could hardly be room for confusion on the subject. Now, qualifying to have that name is another matter because it requires truly being built upon the gospel of Christ, and not merely an imitation, or a mingling of it.
In a revelation through Joseph Smith, the Lord addresses the name of the church, and says,
“For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (LDS D&C 115:4, given in April 1838)
Looking only at the name of the church and the explanation given in the book of Mormon, it would seem apparent at what the name of the church should be… but then there is this additional phrase “of Latter-day Saints”, which is not anticipated based on the explanation in the book of Mormon. When the issue of naming the church is plainly addressed in the book of Mormon, why is this explanation not quite consistent with the revelation given? When Joseph Smith, who translated this passage of the Book of Mormon, receives a revelation from the same Lord who gave this explanation, regarding what the church should be called, why is the response from the Lord to call the church, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (LDS D&C 115:4)?
If the Lord had said to call the church, “the church of Jesus Christ”, or “the church of Christ” and left it at that, would there be any question about why such a name is what the Lord elects to call it? Or suppose the Lord says that the appropriate name for the church is, “The Church of The Latter-day Saints”, what understanding would be communicated by Lord giving the church that kind of name? Would that imply that in the Lord’s view, the church is called after “latter-day saints” because it is the church of that group of people? The example the Lord gives in the book of Mormon is a noble name, even Moses, who may be considered an ancient saint. Likewise, “Latter day saints” is also a good, commendable title have. But despite the goodness of the name, what is peculiar is that it still implies that it is not exactly the Lord’s church alone because it is not called only in his name, even if it also bears the name of a holy prophet or a saint or saints.
What an odd thing it is that when the Lord is consulted on what to call the church, from His perspective, His counsel is to call the church, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. Not exactly the straight and clear “church of Christ”. But neither is it the “Church of Latter-day Saints”. Kind of a curve ball, or unexpected response, isn’t it? Why would the Lord say that it is appropriate to call the church, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”? What might that say about what He thinks of the church? Why did he not call it simply in his name alone? Why is this response different from the response He gave the Nephites, when he simply told them to call the church in his name? Why did He not call it simply in his name on this occasion? Or to follow the other example, why did he not call it in the name of a man, or men? Why the combination?
There is some history to each part of what the Lord calls the church. When the church was first legally organized on April 6, 1830 it was called and referred to as the church of Christ. That was it. In fact, early revelations that are recorded still preserve this name, such as it is called throughout section 20 (LDS). Here are some examples:
“The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days” (LDS D&C 20:1)
“The several elders composing this church of Christ are to meet in conference” (LDS D&C 20:61)
”The elders or priests are to have a sufficient time to expound all things concerning the church of Christ to their understanding,“ (LDS D&C 20:68)
”Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders” (LDS D&C 20:70)
”No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability” (LDS D&C 20:71)
”Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct.“ (LDS D&C 20:80)
”It shall be the duty of the several churches, composing the church of Christ, to send one or more of their teachers to attend the several conferences held by the elders of the church,” (LDS D&C 20:81)
It’s apparent that when as this section is written, in April of 1830, the name of the church is “the church of Christ”. Other sections which also refer this being the name of the church at that time are:
”that you might be an elder unto this church of Christ, bearing my name“ (LDS D&C 21:11, given in April 1830)
”every person who belongeth to this church of Christ, shall observe to keep all the commandments and covenants of the church.” (LDS D&C 42:78, given in February 1831)
”To the church of Christ in the land of Zion, in addition to the church laws respecting church business” (LDS D&C 107:59, given April 1835)*
This last example is interesting because there may have been some disputations among the people about what to call the church at this time (just as there were in the book of Mormon). Evidence that there may have been some disputing about the name of the church is recorded by the notes from a conference on May 3, 1834, which say:
“After prayer the Conference proceeded to discuss the subject of names and appellations, when a motion was made by SIDNEY RIGDON, and seconded by NEWEL K. WHITNEY, that this church be known hereafter by the name of THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS. Appropriate remarks were delivered by some of the members, after which the motion was put by the Moderator, and passed by unanimous voice.“ (Evening and Morning Star, Vol. II Kirtland, Ohio, May, 1834. No. 20. page 160).
Looking at these minutes now, finds them lacking in detail for why such a name as “The Church of The Latter Day Saints” was chosen and passed by unanimous voice of those attending the conference which includes Joseph Smith (moderator), Frederick G. Williams (clerk), Oliver Cowdery (clerk), Sidney Rigdon, and Newel K. Whitney among others. Why did they think this name to be appropriate? Why did they not think it appropriate to continue doing as they had done in calling the church, the church of Christ?
While these details are missing, there are some clues which may have influenced their decision to move in this direction. There are several revelations where the Lord seems to be unimpressed by those belonging to the church and instead of referring to them as being his, he refers to the church as people who are professing his name.
”ye that hear me not will I curse, that have professed my name, with the heaviest of all cursings.” (LDS D&C 41:1, given in February 1831)
“Behold, I, the Lord, have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name.” (LDS D&C 50:4, given in May 1831)
”Hearken, O ye people who profess my name, saith the Lord your God” (LDS D&C 56:1, given in June 1831)
It’s one thing for a person to claim to be Christ’s, and another for Christ to claim a person as his.
With such stern warnings by the Lord about people professing to be his but failing to heed his words, perhaps the conference thought it best to stop calling themselves His church until they qualified in the Lord’s eyes, by also heeding Christ’s words. After all, it is quite a warning to be cursed, “with the heaviest of all cursings” for professing his name but not actually hearing him. Later, this type of concern appears to be validated when the Lord again gives a very stern warning to those within the church:
“Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.” (LDS D&C 112:24-26, given in July 1837)
The consequences for claiming to be more than what the Lord sees one to be, appear to be very severe indeed.
Regardless of what names people use to refer to the church, perhaps it may be more important to understand what the Lord calls a church and why. Perhaps it would be beneficial to find out what it takes to qualify for the Lord to call a church His own and remove any part about it being a church of a man, or men, or saints. What does it take to qualify for Him to call a church His own, alone?