Russell Nelson Seeking Offense Symptom of Spiritual Immaturity

Russell M. Nelson claims the terms Mormon, Hispanic, black, Jew, and Gentile “are utilized with the intent to demean.” He’s sure quick to take offense. He believes that the term is an offense to God and a major victory for Satan.

Unfortunately, our modern society is caught up in divisive disputation. Often unkind nicknames are added to—or even substituted for—given names. Labels are invented to foster feelings of segregation and competition. For example, athletic teams acquire names to intimidate others, such as Giants, Tigers, Warriors, and so on. Harmless you say? Well, perhaps not overly important. But that is only the beginning. More serious separation results when labels are utilized with the intent to demean, such as Jew, Gentile, black, Hispanic, or Mormon.

“A More Excellent Hope” Russell M. Nelson, Apostle. January 8, 1995. BYU Devotional

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/excellent-hope/

Divisive Labels

Russell Nelson’s assertion that terms like “Jew,” “Gentile,” and “black” are labels used with the intent to demean is puzzling, particularly given how frequently these terms appear in scripture, church teachings, and doctrine. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints routinely uses these very labels without negative connotations. For instance, “Gentile” is a scriptural term used in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to distinguish those outside the covenant lineage of Israel, while “Jew” refers to those within it. These labels are used descriptively, not pejoratively, to delineate different groups. For example, references to the gathering of the “House of Israel” and the role of Gentiles in bringing about this gathering are integral to church teachings, and the terms “Jew” and “Gentile” are used in a neutral, or even positive, theological sense. Is he suggesting that the church, or even his own remarks, has demeaning intentions when using the terms?

Furthermore, the church has a long and controversial history regarding race, particularly in how it referred to “black” individuals and their place within church doctrine, especially before 1978. Nelson’s inclusion of “black” in a list of terms used to demean is particularly ironic, given that the church once explicitly banned black individuals from holding the priesthood or entering temples based on racial doctrine. While the church has since reversed this policy which banned anyone with a drop of African blood, the history is well-documented, and Nelson’s statement is intentionally oblivious to the church’s past reliance on these very labels in divisive and discriminatory ways. This is part of the gaslighting and whitewashing efforts of the church to hide any aspects of church history, past or even present doctrines that may not be faith-promoting.

By lumping all these terms together under the assumption that they are used to demean, Nelson oversimplifies the nuanced ways in which labels can be both harmful and benign, depending on context. His statement fails to acknowledge that terms like “Jew” or “Gentile” often hold cultural, historical, and spiritual significance rather than being primarily vehicles for division. Moreover, it sidesteps the church’s responsibility for using such terms in harmful ways—particularly regarding race.

Nelson’s critique of these labels as inherently divisive falls flat when placed against the backdrop of church history and scriptural use. Rather than taking accountability for past and present uses of these terms within the church, his statement projects blame onto others. Ignoring the number of times the church uses these terms (Jew, Gentile, black), which Nelson states are utilized with the intent to demean, is the last term, Mormon, really demeaning? Is it used by others with the intent to demean? It’s no surprise this is a nickname of the church, since a distinguishing feature of the church is the unique new book of scripture, which, even though is another testament of Jesus Christ, is called The Book of Mormon. The term Mormon, unique to the church, is actually the name of the alleged ancient prophet who compiled the record as Gold Plates in Reformed Egyptian for later translation by Joseph Smith.

With the Intent to Demean

President Russell M. Nelson’s criticism of the term “Mormon” as offensive to God is ironic, especially given his own use of labels to demean others. For instance, Nelson has referred to certain members of the church as “lazy learners” and “lax disciples”—terms that carry a clear tone of judgment and condescension. While he insists that using the common and long-accepted nickname “Mormon” offends God, he seems comfortable applying harsh labels to fellow believers. This double standard is glaring: how can Nelson condemn the world for using a name the church itself embraced for over a century, while at the same time employing divisive and demeaning labels within his own community? The inconsistency undermines the very principle of respect he claims to defend. If God is truly offended by labels that divide and demean, Nelson should take a hard look at his own rhetoric. Does he not use the labels “lazy learner” and “lax disciple” with the intent to demean?

Who Is Offended?

We have multiple other church leaders stating that the term Mormon is not demeaning, but means “more good.” Nelson continued his crusade against the church’s nickname once he became church President and stated that it offends God and is a major victory for Satan!

But David A Bednar states that being offended is a choice and that it is impossible for someone else to offend you. Sure, God can do things we may find impossible, but why would he do this impossible thing with His omnipotence?

Bednar says it is “ultimately impossible for another person to offend you” and to be offended “is a choice we make.” But Russell M. Nelson states that the Savior “is offended” when we “allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames” for the church. Does God care so much about what we call a church? Even if it were His One True Church, would that be His focus?

Contrasting the quotes of Russell Nelson and David Bednar, we’re left with an odd contradiction. Nelson declares that God Himself is offended when people use the term “Mormon” to refer to the Church, stating that the Savior is “serious” about the name of His Church. On the other hand, Bednar teaches that offense is entirely a choice, and that no one can offend us unless we allow it. So, where does this leave us? Is God Himself also choosing to be offended over a nickname?

Nelson’s statement feels particularly striking when put next to Bednar’s assertion that to be offended is a personal decision. If we take Bednar’s view at face value, even God, with His perfect understanding, would theoretically have the agency to “choose” not to be offended by something as benign as a nickname. Yet, Nelson insists that the use of “Mormon” does offend God, as if the Almighty can’t simply overlook this perceived slight. This contradiction raises the all too obvious question: is it God who is offended, or is Nelson projecting his personal frustration with the term?

Bednar’s teachings aim to empower individuals by suggesting that offense is something we control (while also shaming those who genuinely find offenses). He frames emotional responses as an aspect of personal agency, suggesting that choosing to be offended is spiritually immature. Yet Nelson’s quote seems to do the opposite, implying that something as small as the wrong name for the Church has cosmic consequences, casting the matter as a divine offense. If being offended is a personal choice, as Bednar argues, why would the creator of the universe be so affected by a simple misnomer?

This inconsistency doesn’t just highlight a divergence between two leaders’ statements, it underscores a broader tension within the Church’s teachings about offense and emotional maturity. If being offended is a spiritual malady, as Bednar suggests, then shouldn’t God, of all beings, transcend that? And if something as trivial as a nickname is enough to offend God, what does that say about the teachings of empathy and choosing how we respond to perceived slights?

Nelson’s Spiritual Immaturity

Ultimately, this contrast raises the question: is it truly God who is offended, or are we witnessing the projection of human emotions onto the divine? Nelson’s insistence on the Church’s name being a matter of divine offense feels more like a reflection of personal or institutional concerns rather than the feelings of an omnipotent God. Meanwhile, Bednar’s perspective challenges the very premise of Nelson’s claim. It’s fairly easy to conclude that it is Russell M. Nelson’s own immaturity that continuously finds offense at the church’s nickname. He claims it is used to demean, but it is not, and he seeks offense where there is none intended. Bednar hints that choosing to be offended like this is a symptom of a much deeper and serious spiritual malady. Nelson, the president of the church has a serious spiritual malady.

Did you find the term Mormon offensive? Were you choosing to be offended? Is Bednar or Nelson correct here? Can they both be correct? Is Nelson or Hinckley correct here? Can they both be correct too? What dissonance did this nickname offence give you as a member of the Mormon church? Did you reconcile the issues or was that part of your reason for leaving? Consider sharing your faith deconstruction or “I was a Mormon” story at wasmormon.org!

• Don’t Say Mormon
• Major Victories for Satan
• Will God Permit Church President to Lead Mormons Astray?
• Nickname Pejoratively Attached to Church By Enemies
• Does President Nelson Talk With God? Do Any Church Leaders?
• What happened to Mormon.org?
• The Church Leaves the Term Mormon, But Can’t Leave it Alone
• Retrofitting Revelation For The Mormon Church Official Name
• The Mormon Church Now Discourages Mormonism
• On Choosing To Be Offended