Jack Mormons
Jack Mormon once meant something else
The Salt Lake Tribune
01/13/2008
While rooting around in old Tribune files, Robert Kirby came upon this
little gem and forwarded it to me. I pass it on to you.
"A gentleman writing us from
Boise, asks us, 'What is a jack-Mormon?' It is a nondescript between a Gentile
and Mormon; in the animal kingdom known as the mule. In some countries it is
better known as the What-is-it, and is without gender. In Utah it does the dirty
work for the Mormon Priesthood, who first grease it, then pat it, and finally
kick it because it has no friends. Tom Fitch, of Nevada, ex-Governor Fuller, of
New Jersey, George Seizer, of Michigan, are all fair samples of the jack-Mormon.
Others, fresh from the green pastures of the East, are traveling the same road.
The jack is a dirty animal . . . ."
The Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 17, 1875.
The gentlemen mentioned in the article were "gentiles" on good terms with
the LDS Church.
I always thought a Jack
Mormon was a nominal member of the LDS Church who had outsourced his or her
moral compass to hard-partying secular humanists. But the Tribune's
definition from 123 years ago makes it clear it used to mean something quite
different.
Sometime between then and now, "Jack Mormon" was transformed in popular usage from a non-Mormon who was friendly to Mormons, to a Mormon who is way too casual with regard to his church's values.
Several people think the term
denotes Mormons with a fondness for Jack Daniel's. Actually, it goes back to
early meanings of "Jack."
As early as the 14th century,
the poet Geoffrey Chaucer used the term "Jakke fool." Jack of beanstalk fame was
a gullible dimwit who traded the family cow for half a handful of beans. And, of
course, there are jackasses of animal and human origin.
On the early frontier, "Jack
Mormon" couldn't mean anything other than a dupe with some connection to Joseph
Smith's new religion.
The Story of The
Latter-day Saints explains, "Because of their friendliness toward the
beleaguered Saints, the helpful citizens of Clay and other counties were
criticized by hostile elements in Jackson County and dubbed 'Jack Mormons,' a
term applied widely in the 19th century to friendly non-Mormons."
The first use of the term is
credited to Thomas C. Sharpe, a ferocious anti-Mormon from Illinois. Sharpe
lobbed verbal bombshells at nearby Mormon Nauvoo, Ill., from his newspaper, the
Warsaw Signal. In 1846 the following item appeared in his paper:
"A certain Jack-mormon of
Hancock county, we won't call him big-head, (but the Saints used to) is in the
habit of shaving the hair off his forehead, in order to give it an intellectual
appearance."-'Warsaw (Ill.) Signal,' 6 Feb., page 3/1.
Somewhere in the early 20th
century, Jack Mormon came to its current meaning. LDS author Preston Nibley used
the term, in its turned-on-its-head incarnation, in the 1940s. Since then, Jack
Mormon is another term for those straddlers who, in LDS theology, fence-sat
during the War in Heaven.
Jack Mormon is mildly
derogatory, and can carry a sense of shame with it. The lapsed LDS fighter Jack
Dempsey reportedly wrote, "I'm proud to be a Mormon. And ashamed to be the Jack
Mormon that I am."
It is also a kind of war wound, proudly worn by many who are still technically "in" the dominant culture, but not "of" it.
Leaving the Mormon Church
October 8, 2008
By Sharon Lindbloom
Last week Jeff Spector over at Mormon Matters wrote about an
interesting phenomenon. In “Hedging Your Bets: Refusing to Leave the
Church” Mr. Spector talked about inactive Mormons and the negative
reactions from some of them when they are visited by their Home
Teachers. Mr. Spector wrote:
“I have been yelled at, cursed at, threatened with the police, etc.
just for showing up at a member’s door and asking about them. And yet,
most do not want their name removed from the Church rolls.
“Either, they have family concerns, are just too lazy to write the
letter, or don’t care enough to do anything about their Church
membership other than request no contact from the Church….
“So, it has always intrigued me as to why these folks seem unable to
completely divorce themselves from the Church. Even though they want no
contact.”
Many of the comments left in response to Mr. Spector’s blog center on
whether people who have requested no contact from the Church should be
left alone. But I’m more interested in the original question. Why don’t
people who want nothing to do with the LDS Church have their names
removed from membership?
LDS leaders have been fond of saying that people might “leave the
Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone” (e.g., Neal A. Maxwell,
“‘Becometh As a Child’,” Ensign, May 1996). This is usually applied to
vocal ex-Mormon critics, but the saying has equal relevancy for
Latter-day Saints who drift into inactivity. It carries with it an
implication that these people know the Church is true, and they just
can’t shake the conviction. Happily, I didn’t see this kind of rhetoric
at Mormon Matters.
I think Mr. Spector’s short list of reasons is a good one, though it’s
certainly not exhaustive. The last two suggestions are really just one:
being too lazy to write a resignation letter has its root in not caring
about Church membership at all. Why bother to write a letter and endure
the possible fallout (i.e., efforts to convince the person to change
his or her mind) if there is no real reason to go to the trouble?
Family concerns are another matter. One commenter at Mormon Matters wrote,
“I think a lot of people don’t want to take hope away from their
family! It could devastate parents or a sibling to think they won’t
make it into the celestial kingdom with them.”
Another commenter told this story:
“My parents provided my brother’s contact information to the Church’s
Lost Sheep program when they called asking his whereabouts. He’s been
inactive for 15 years at least.
“My brother was livid. He wanted no contact at all with the Church and told my parents never to do that again.
“Yet I doubt he would bother with forms and letters to avoid the
possibility of contact entirely. His name’s mere presence on the rolls
performs some minimal comforting function for my parents, who think his
testimony is just weak, or that he is going through a phase.”
According to the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions, the removal of a
person’s name from Church membership “cancels the effects of baptism
and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member, and
revokes temple blessings” (Book 1, page 129, 1999 edition), while mere
Church inactivity does not carry with it these consequences. For some
inactive Mormons, then, remaining on the Church role is done out of
consideration for their LDS loved ones.
Another possible reason for people remaining on the Church membership
list was suggested by Mr. Spector’s article title: Hedging Your Bets.
People who don’t know what to believe sometimes look at church
membership or completed ordinances as a sort of fire insurance. This
isn’t unique to Mormonism; people from many faith backgrounds have told
me they’ve been baptized, said a prayer, or given money to a church
“just in case.” They are hedging their bets.
For Mormons, though, there is another level of insecurity that might
enter into a person’s reasons for remaining a Church member, even if it
is in name only. According to one of the commenter's at Mormon Matters,
“Also of note is the relatively recent church policy of only one
re-baptism per person. If you request name removal, are re-baptized,
and then are excommunicated for any reason, or request name-removal
again, you cannot get re-baptized in mortality. You’ll have to hope
someone does it in the temple for you.”
Add to that another LDS Church policy which states, “First Presidency
approval is required to perform temple ordinances for deceased persons
who…had their names removed from Church membership records” (Church
Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, page 75, 1999 edition), and it’s easy
to see why some people may be hesitant to “divorce themselves
completely” from the LDS Church.
I’m thinking that Mormon Coffee readers may have some interesting
insight into the question posed by Jeff Spector: Why don’t people who
want nothing to do with the LDS Church have their names removed from
membership?
What has been your experience, and what do you think?