When referring to church leaders, the church is sure to always use an initial to ensure the leader’s full name is used. For example, the church will never refer to Gordon Hinckley, but always Gordon B. Hinckley. They will never reference Russell Nelson, but Russell M. Nelson. This presumably is in order to give the leadership credence and a formality, as is done with business executives and such. It accents the man as a distinguished leader and elicits authority.
The case could be made that the custom grew out of the names of some of the early church leaders and the need to distinguish one from another. Specifically thinking about Joseph Smith, Jr (the church founder who had no middle name) and his father Joseph Smith, Sr. Then we had church president Joseph F. (Fielding) Smith (the nephew of Joseph Smith, Jr and 6th church president) and Joseph Fielding Smith (Joseph F. Smith’s son and 10th church president) who used his full name to distinguish from his father. Around this time all church leaders were referenced with a middle initial, which we could assume was to keep them all straight since there were many polygamous families and names just tended to run out when so many have the same first and last name.
Never in the history of mankind have name initials played such an important role as in the LDS Church.
Not only are middle initials used when referring to the leaders of the Church, one cannot even say the names without the middle initials. It just doesn’t sound right. Gordon Hinckley, Russell Ballard, Reuben Clark? In some cases,the first name is not even used just the initial, probably to distinguish a son from his father.
Many of the early leaders of the Church didn’t have middle names, like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Wilford Woodruff, Hyrum Smith, to name a few. But, then again, some did. Heber C. (Chase) Kimball, John W. (Willard) Young, George Q. (Quayle) Cannon and George A. (Albert) Smith, for example.
In some case, it is understandably necessary to distinguish one person from another. Joseph F. Smith, for example, not to confuse him with his uncle, Joseph Smith, and Joseph Felding Smith, not to confuse him with his father, Joseph F. Smith.
In some case, leaders used their entire name, Ezra Taft Benson, George Albert Smith.
And what is wrong with perfectly good names like Nathan (N. Eldon Tanner), Joshua (Joshua Reuben Clark) or Melvin (M. Russell Ballard). Ok, maybe Melvin.
Why the rest then? We would know who Gordon Hinckley is/was without the B (Bitner)? Thomas Monson with the S (Spencer)?
What’s With the Initials Anyway?, Mormon Matters
https://www.mormonmatters.org/what-with-the-initials-anyway/
Middle names and initials gradually became the norm—and we can even track the trend by looking at old general conference reports available online:
- In April 1880 (the first official conference report), 10 of the 31 speakers had a middle name or initial—that’s 32 percent.
- In October 1897 (the next-oldest report), 23 of 37 speakers had a middle name or initial—62 percent.
- And by April 1914, all but one of the 32 speakers had a middle initial, with Rudger Judd Clawson listed simply as “Rudger Clawson.” Elder Clawson appears to be the last General Authority to choose not to use his middle initial.
- Since 1914, all members of the Quorum of the Twelve have used an initial if they had three names. But three Apostles since that time have not had a middle name: Elders LeGrand Richards (1886–1983), Matthew Cowley (1897–1953), and Ulisses Soares (born 1958).
The Church has given no public, official guidelines on the use of middle initials in the names of general leaders, so it appears that this is a more informal tradition. Why, then, do we have this tradition? Perhaps it’s simply a way to show esteem for our leaders.
When and why did we start using middle initials in Church leaders’ names? By Jake Frandsen
https://www.ldsliving.com/when-and-why-did-we-start-using-middle-initials-in-church-leaders-names/s/11366
Is the tradition of using middle initials for church leaders simply to show esteem for church leaders? Some would rather use a middle finger when referencing church leadership than use a middle initial which shows esteem.
Why does the Mormon church use initials in the names of church leaders?
There are suggestions that the church cease the pompous practice of using initials to aggrandize the church leaders, but it’s not likely the church would listen.
There are guesses that, as mentioned, the reason for so much initial inflation is on account of the presumed boost of power and officialdom it provides. It sets the leaders, individually and collectively, apart from the rank and file…
Creating distance between those in charge and those who are told to obey is hurtful, not helpful.
Here’s my suggestion: Unless Dallin H. Oaks goes by Dallin H. when his wife asks him to mop the kitchen floor at home and David A. Bednar is called David A. by his bride and other family members and close friends when he’s changing lightbulbs or playing pingpong on a Saturday morning, I say ditch the excessive initials. We’re all friends here, right?
Especially since using them adds cultural clutter to a church that needs to lose some cultural clutter and connect better with the faithful and the less-than-faithful on a spiritual level. And not highlight that clutter in such a manner, one that seems made up by somebody in a back office somewhere who thought it might be a good idea, and it rolled forward like the stone cut without hands, edging toward ironclad dogma from there.
Gordon A. Monson: In the name of humility, LDS leaders should ditch those middle initials
That extra letter “sounds and looks and is pretentious … and church prophets and apostles and Seventies and the rest should be anything but pretentious.”
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/04/22/gordon-monson-name-humility-lds/
Though it may humanize the leadership, that’s not usually their goal. They are in fact setting themselves as the embodied authority of God on the earth. If that doesn’t demand authority, what could? The only surprising thing is they haven’t yet retroactively given all leaders a middle initial. They could update the histories to refer only Joseph J. Smith and Brigham A. Young, etc. They are fond of retrofitting history to the needs of church leaders and the church culture in general. Why stop at early 1800s church leaders? Why not Jesus himself!? Though some do use a middle initial for Jesus but these instances are not usually due to respect.
Jesus had no middle initial, and one is only added rather disrespectfully, uttered among the unwashed in anger or humor, when his holy name, combined with the Messianic moniker Christ, has an H. or an F. thrown in in the middle, used in unholy expression.
Gordon A. Monson: In the name of humility, LDS leaders should ditch those middle initials
That extra letter “sounds and looks and is pretentious … and church prophets and apostles and Seventies and the rest should be anything but pretentious.”
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/04/22/gordon-monson-name-humility-lds/
More reading: