Why do Mormons refer to themselves as Latter Day Saints?

The designation 'Latter-day Saint' is rooted in Joseph Smith's narrative of a restored church and continuous divine revelation, a claim unsupported by the closed canon of the Tanakh and the apostolic witness. This self-identification marks a significant theological departure from the original Hebrai

Quick Answer

Why Do Mormons Refer to Themselves as Latter-day Saints? Quick Answer Quick Answer: Mormons refer to themselves as Latter-day Saints because their church claims to be a divinely restored "true church" for the "latter days," based on Joseph Smith Jr.'s purported revelations. This nomenclature signifies a theological break from the closed canon of the Tanakh…

Why Do Mormons Refer to Themselves as Latter-day Saints?

Quick Answer

Quick Answer: Mormons refer to themselves as Latter-day Saints because their church claims to be a divinely restored "true church" for the "latter days," based on Joseph Smith Jr.'s purported revelations. This nomenclature signifies a theological break from the closed canon of the Tanakh and the apostolic witness, asserting a new dispensation rather than continuity with the original Hebraic-Messianic faith.

The Scholarly Case

The self-designation "Latter-day Saints," commonly abbreviated as LDS, is central to the identity of the religious organization officially known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This naming convention is not merely a preference but a theological assertion, deeply embedded in the foundational claims of Mormonism. To understand this, one must first grasp the core tenets articulated by its founder, Joseph Smith Jr. Smith claimed that after the death of the original apostles, a "Great Apostasy" occurred, leading to a complete corruption of the original faith. This narrative posits that all existing Christian churches by the early 19th century were false, necessitating a divine restoration. According to Smith, this restoration began with his "First Vision" in 1820, where he claimed God the Father and Yeshua appeared to him, instructing him that all existing churches "were an abomination." This account is foundational to the LDS claim of being the "restored church." The term "Latter-day" directly reflects this restorationist theology. It signifies that the church, as re-established through Smith, is the true church of God for the final dispensation of time, preceding the second coming of Yeshua. This is a direct contrast to the continuous, unbroken covenantal history understood in Hebraic and Messianic Jewish thought, which affirms the enduring validity of the Torah and the prophetic tradition culminating in Yeshua HaMashiach. The concept of "saints" in this context refers to members of this restored church, implying a special status as God's chosen people in this final era. From a Hebraic-Messianic perspective, this claim of a "restored church" in the "latter days" is problematic. The Tanakh, our foundational scripture, explicitly warns against adding to or subtracting from divine commandments. Deuteronomy 4:2 states, "You must not add to or subtract from what I command you, so that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I am giving you." Similarly, Proverbs 30:6 cautions, "Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar." These verses establish a closed canon for divine revelation, particularly concerning foundational laws and doctrines. The Book of Mormon, which Smith claimed to translate from golden plates, presents itself as an additional testament of Yeshua HaMashiach, meant to complement the Bible. However, this introduction of new scripture, along with ongoing revelations claimed by LDS prophets, directly contravenes the principles of a closed canon established in the Tanakh. The Hebraic tradition understands prophecy to have ceased with Malachi, around 430 BCE, with the expectation of Messiah's coming, not new foundational scripture from a different continent. Furthermore, the historical and archaeological claims within the Book of Mormon have been systematically challenged. For example, its depiction of pre-Columbian horses, chariots, steel swords, wheat, barley, and silk in ancient Mesoamerica lacks archaeological corroboration. Michael Coe, in "Mormons & Archaeology: An Outside View" (Dialogue, 1973), highlighted these significant anachronisms. While LDS apologists like John Sorenson attempted to address these in "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" (1985), his arguments have faced substantial rebuttals from scholars like Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel, who point to the continued absence of supporting evidence. The claim that Native Americans ("Lamanites") are descendants of ancient Hebrews is also contradicted by genetic evidence. Simon Southerton's "Losing a Lost Tribe" (2004) demonstrates through mtDNA analysis that the genetic markers of indigenous American populations are overwhelmingly East Asian, not Semitic. This directly refutes a core historical and theological claim of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church, which posits a Hebrew lineage for these "Latter-day Saints." The concept of "continuing revelation" in the LDS church, where living prophets receive ongoing divine guidance, is presented as a strength. However, this often extends to administrative matters, such as the rebranding efforts to emphasize "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and deemphasize "Mormon." While presented by figures like Roger Hendris as a "positive theological shift," this strategic rebranding also serves to distance the church from controversial historical associations and align it more closely with mainstream Christian terminology, often without altering foundational doctrines. This raises questions about the nature and purpose of such "revelation," especially when contrasted with the profound, salvific revelations recorded in the Tanakh and Brit Chadashah. In summary, the choice to refer to themselves as "Latter-day Saints" is a deliberate theological statement by the LDS church, asserting a unique status as a divinely restored entity for a final dispensation. However, this assertion fundamentally diverges from the Hebraic-Messianic understanding of a closed canon, the nature of prophecy, and the historical continuity of God's covenant with Israel, ultimately presenting a different gospel and a different Yeshua than that proclaimed by the first-century apostles.

Adversary Teardown: lds.org

The official website, lds.org (now churchofjesuschrist.org), and associated apologetic efforts consistently promote the self-designation "Latter-day Saint" as a legitimate and divinely inspired title. They argue that this reflects their identity as a "legitimate and American Christian institution," as promoted by "Saints Unscripted." This argument often attempts to draw parallels between the church's name change directives and corporate rebrandings, suggesting that criticism stems from a lack of respect for its "newness" or "Americanness." This defense mechanism is a classic misdirection. The comparison to corporate rebrandings, such as Twitter to X, fundamentally ignores the theological and historical claims that differentiate Mormonism from the historic Hebraic-Messianic faith and Nicene Christianity. The invocation of "newness" and "Americanness" as shields against criticism is a rhetorical device to sidestep legitimate theological and historical objections to its foundational claims and the teachings of its founder, Joseph Smith Jr. The lineage of this adversary tradition is clear: **Joseph Smith Jr.** (born 1805) claimed his "First Vision" in 1820 (though this account was retroactively dated and evolved over time), leading to the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830. He established the church, which underwent several name changes, eventually settling on "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Following his death in 1844, **Brigham Young** led a significant portion of the adherents to Utah in 1847. Young introduced the Adam-God doctrine in 1852 and openly practiced polygamy until the church officially renounced it under federal pressure with the 1890 Manifesto, though D&C 132, which codifies polygamy, remains in their scriptures. This lineage demonstrates a continuous evolution of doctrine and practice, often driven by charismatic leadership and external pressures, rather than a consistent adherence to a static, divinely revealed truth. The critical fault line here is the claim of "continuing revelation" that justifies these shifts. While presented as a "genuine, positive theological shift" by Roger Hendris, the "revelation" from Russell M. Nelson to emphasize the full name and deemphasize "Mormon" is more akin to a public relations strategy than a profound theological truth. The vulnerability lies in the trivial nature of such "revelation" when compared to the gravitas of biblical prophecy concerning salvation history. This shows a deviation from the Hebraic understanding of divine communication, which is consistently tied to covenant, redemption, and the establishment of God's kingdom, not corporate identity or marketing adjustments. Furthermore, the LDS church's defense often relies on subjective "feelings" or "experiencing the Spirit" as validation for their beliefs. While personal experience is part of faith, it cannot supersede objective theological consistency or biblical doctrine. Dismissing substantive criticisms as "spiritual warfare," as seen in "Saints Unscripted," avoids engaging with the core issues where LDS theology deviates significantly from the Hebraic-Messianic understanding of Elohim, Yeshua, and salvation. For example, while Mormons use Christian terminology, their definitions of key terms (God, Yeshua, salvation, atonement) diverge significantly from historical Nicene Christianity, as even some LDS members admit, stating that "theologically it doesn't match up." This highlights that superficial similarities in language do not equate to fundamental agreement in doctrine.

Counter-Arguments Anticipated

Objection 1: The term "Latter-day Saints" simply reflects a modern restoration of biblical principles, not a deviation.

This argument fails to acknowledge the clear warnings in the Tanakh against adding to God's word. Deuteronomy 4:2 states, "You must not add to or subtract from what I command you, so that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I am giving you." Similarly, Proverbs 30:6 warns, "Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar." The introduction of the Book of Mormon as new scripture and the concept of ongoing, administrative "revelation" fundamentally contradict the closed canon established in Hebraic thought and affirmed by the apostolic witness. The original Hebraic-Messianic faith does not posit a "great apostasy" requiring a new dispensation and new scripture, but rather a continuous covenant fulfilled in Yeshua HaMashiach.

Objection 2: Mormons are Christians because they believe in Yeshua HaMashiach and use the name "The Church of Jesus Christ."

While the LDS church uses the name of Yeshua and affirms His divinity, resurrection, and second coming, their understanding of these concepts and the nature of God differs significantly from historic Hebraic-Messianic and Nicene Christianity. As noted by many scholars, including those within the LDS community, while Mormons "unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christian," "theologically it doesn't match up." The Hebraic understanding of Elohim emphasizes a compound unity, as in Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One." This "Echad" (one) implies a unified plurality, as seen in Genesis 1:26 ("Let Us make man in Our image") and Genesis 19:24 ("Then the LORD rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens"). The LDS concept of God, with its belief in a Heavenly Father who was once a man and the potential for humans to become gods, is a fundamental departure from this biblical monotheism and the nature of Yeshua as the unique Son of God.

Objection 3: The unity and community found within the Latter-day Saint faith, across national lines, is evidence of its divine nature, similar to the early apostolic community.

While the concept of unity in a "household of faith" is indeed biblical, as seen in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," the foundation of this unity is critical. In the Hebraic-Messianic faith, this unity is based on faith in Yeshua HaMashiach as revealed in the Tanakh and Brit Chadashah, adherence to the Torah, and the indwelling of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). The unity within Mormonism, however, is founded on extra-biblical revelations, a different gospel, and a unique understanding of God and salvation. This means that while outward expressions of community may appear similar, the underlying theological framework that binds them together is fundamentally different from the original apostolic community and the Messianic Jewish understanding of unity in Messiah.

Position Lock

Position Lock: The self-designation "Latter-day Saints" is a theological claim rooted in Joseph Smith Jr.'s extra-biblical revelations and a false narrative of apostasy, fundamentally diverging from the closed canon of the Tanakh and the apostolic witness of the first-century Hebraic-Messianic faith. The true "saints" are those who follow Yeshua HaMashiach according to the Torah and the Brit Chadashah, not through newly revealed scriptures or doctrines that contradict established divine truth.