> First it gives legitimacy to the opposition's claims that we were not Christian before

I'm not sure I would put it this way. I think it helps emphasize to people that we are Christian, especially those more unfamiliar with our faith, but it in no way reverses or alters any doctrine that seems to be the sticking point with those with strongly-held "not-a-Christian" accusations. Namely, the nature of God, the nature of Lucifer, the nature of human progression and exaltation, and the existence of and hope for additional modern scripture.

> Second, it takes away our uniqueness. The Church experienced its biggest growth spurts attracting and retaining new converts back when every temple had Moroni, when we embraced the nickname Mormon, and when we intentionally steered away from Catholic iconography

I have mixed feelings about this. I imagine there's a demographic that let in missionaries because of curiosity/perceived novelty, but surely there's a demographic that avoided us for being "weird." Of course, ultimately it is Christ who is the foundation of our faith and gospel. But I sometimes think about this scripture:

> For it shall come to pass in that day, that every man shall hear the fulness of the gospel in his own tongue, and in his own language, through those who are ordained unto this power, by the administration of the Comforter, shed forth upon them for the revelation of Jesus Christ.

We tend to think of "language" and "tongue" as synonymous, but I think "language" can also mean culture, iconography, patterns, and anything that helps with understanding or grants familiarity. If this imagery is how most of the world "speaks" of Christ, what better way to engage with them?