An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[dianaiad]

Just want to add one thing here:
I have read the BoM - and to be perfectly honest: In my opinion is the BoM alone (without knowing the other LDS-Scriptures) a VERY, very Protestant Book:

Salvation through grace alone, Repentance, Credo-Baptism to name a few.

So I think that you LDS have FAR MORE in common with the Evangelicals than with the Catholics.
In my opinion, if you’d switch religions, you would feel far more “at home” among Evangelicals (i.e. Baptists) than among Catholics. - This shouldn’t be an attempt to prosytelize anyone. This is just a fact because of the huge similarities in doctrine (at least in the early doctrine - the one that the CoC and other Restorationists have).
I have found many parts in the BoM of which I thought: Wah, that would be practical if it would stand in the Holy Bible because this is exact what I (as an emergent Baptist) believe - and it would be practical to have it for evangelization or so…

EDIT: I am not familiar with the whole LDS doctrine and practice. The things I read are more RLDS origin. ('Though I have the Triple Combination at Home: BoM, D&C and Pearl of Great Price!)

Please also refer my other post because it somehow relates to this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7016997#post7016997 #156

In Christ,
Esdra

Esdra, I would not feel ‘at home’ with any group that publishes, supports and applauds things like Mormon Research MInistry, Jack Chick, “Maze of Mormonism” and forums that do not allow LDS to post, or to refer to themselves as "Christian’ if they do post.

I wouldn’t feel at home with any group that does this, no matter what the target is. I am more familiar with the anti-Mormon stuff, of course, but I’ve also run into anti-Catholic stuff, anti Jehovah’s Witness stuff, anti-just about anything else stuff…and I object to the concept, period.

For me, it’s a deal killer.

 

[Javl]

No, it was debated long before the council of Nicea, but it took the council to settle matters, and articulate aspects of the Trinity that were not self evident in the Bible.
Yes, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are evident in Scripture.
No, the three separate persons of one Nature is not evident in the bible.
Result: it enabled the church to speak of three distinct gods yet remain monotheistic (influence of Greek philosophy and the need to appeal to intelligencia of the time)

You had better reread the Bible and understand it, or are you putting your own spin on it?
The three separate Persons and one nature is evident. Jesus said “I and the Father are One”, “The Father is in Me and I am in the Father”. What do thse mean to you? Also, only the Spirit’s “groanings” can describe the Father and the Son. This also means one Nature. There are many passages that describe the one Nature of the Three. There are no “three distinct gods” but One God, one Nature, and Three Persons with that One Nature.

And I had said in my post, the Trinity was known by Paul and the Apostles ( through the grace of God ) and was taught by them. But early on, over time, heresies arose about
the Trinity, such as Monophytism, Arianism, and Gnosis. It was the council that settled the matter concerning it once and for all by formulating the Nicene Creed.

To understand the concept of the Trinity, read the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, Athanasius, Tertullian, and other Church Fathers. All your questions and objections will be answered.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Todd520]

You had better reread the Bible and understand it, or are you putting your own spin on it?
The three separate Persons and one nature is evident. Jesus said “I and the Father are One”, “The Father is in Me and I am in the Father”. What do thse mean to you? Also, only the Spirit’s “groanings” can describe the Father and the Son. This also means one Nature. There are many passages that describe the one Nature of the Three. There are no “three distinct gods” but One God, one Nature, and Three Persons with that One Nature.

And I had said in my post, the Trinity was known by Paul and the Apostles ( through the grace of God ) and was taught by them. But early on, over time, heresies arose about
the Trinity, such as Monophytism, Arianism, and Gnosis. It was the council that settled the matter concerning it once and for all by formulating the Nicene Creed.

To understand the concept of the Trinity, read the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, Athanasius, Tertullian, and other Church Fathers. All your questions and objections will be answered.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Javl,
In no way am I suggesting the Catholic Trinity does not have origins in the bible, it just isn’t self evident like Christ’s core teachings.

Probably for each reference that supports the singular nature of the Trinity, there are 1+ that supports the ‘seperate beings’ interpretation of LDS. This can’t be won as an argument.

The influence of Greek philosophy in articulating the Trinity is a fact, and again nothing to be hesitant in accepting. It doesn’t undermine the truth of value of your Trinity.

 

[Javl]

LDS Churches official declaration of the apostasy- This is very long.

boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_1

Thanks for the link. I shall read it all.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[PopeBono]

Thanks for the link. I shall read it all.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

It will take a while, I would be interested to hear a Catholics viewpoint on that. This is not well known even in the LDS Community. It was written by a prophet at the turn of the 20th century

 

[Javl]

Javl,
In no way am I suggesting the Catholic Trinity does not have origins in the bible, it just isn’t self evident like Christ’s core teachings.

Then you are saying that Christ’s core ( basic? ) teachings support the LDS version of the Trinity?

Probably for each reference that supports the singular nature of the Trinity, there are 1+ that supports the ‘seperate beings’ interpretation of LDS. This can’t be won as an argument.

Assuming what you say is true, can you give me a couple of examples?

The influence of Greek philosophy in articulating the Trinity is a fact, and again nothing to be hesitant in accepting. It doesn’t undermine the truth of value of your Trinity.

Greek philosophy not only articulates the idea of a Trinity, but just about every aspect of Christianity. The reason being is that to understand fully what has been revealed to us,
only a philosophy can do so. Greek philosophy is so simple and complex, and advanced all at once that it fits the bill. Anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should know Greek philosophy for a better understanding of his/her religion and beliefs. In just about any seminary, including Jewish and Muslim, this philosophy is a requisite for graduation/ordination.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

It will take a while, I would be interested to hear a Catholics viewpoint on that. This is not well known even in the LDS Community. It was written by a prophet at the turn of the 20th century

I hope that I can complete reading it. I know it will give me a better understanding of you beliefs. I’ll report on it when I am finished.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[PopeBono]

Despite its length it will not give you a comprehensive view of our beliefs, this mainly covers the apostasy. It is the only literature printed by the church that I know of that is Anti-Catholic in nature. I believe this was done only as a means to explain the apostasy from a historical view as well as a scriptural doctrinal view.

I am worried that it may be to offensive to catholics so I hesitated posting it but one of the questions in this thread posted by another person was wanting proof of the apostasy so I posted what the LDS Church explanation is on the subject.

It took me 5 days to read and study just this section. I hope that it is not to offensive because despite the criticisms leveled in this book I know that our church leaders work very well with your church leaders in doing the real work of the lord which is serving those who are in need.

 

[zerinus]

Just want to add one thing here:
I have read the BoM - and to be perfectly honest: In my opinion is the BoM alone (without knowing the other LDS-Scriptures) a VERY, very Protestant Book:

I couldn’t disagree more. The Book of Mormon is a biblical book. It teaches the same doctrine as the Bible—unless you want to tell me that the Bible is a Protestant Book! The Catholics think that they wrote the Bible; now I suppose the Protestants want to claim that they wrote the Bible! LOL! No way!

Salvation through grace alone,

Not taught in the Book of Mormon.

Repentance,

That is taught everywhere, including the Koran and the Bible. Protestants didn’t invent that.

Credo-Baptism to name a few.

What is that?

So I think that you LDS have FAR MORE in common with the Evangelicals than with the Catholics.

Don’t agree at all. Evans believe in a faith alone salvation; whereas Catholics and Mormons believe in faith + works salvation.

Mormonism and Catholicism are both ecclesiastically structured religions in which the priesthood plays a crucial role. Not so in Protestantism and Evangelicalism. Mormonism has a lot more in common with Catholicism than with Protestantism or Evangelicalism.

In my opinion, if you’d switch religions, you would feel far more “at home” among Evangelicals (i.e. Baptists) than among Catholics. - This shouldn’t be an attempt to prosytelize anyone. This is just a fact because of the huge similarities in doctrine (at least in the early doctrine - the one that the CoC and other Restorationists have).

I don’t agree at all. See above.

I have found many parts in the BoM of which I thought: Wah, that would be practical if it would stand in the Holy Bible because this is exact what I (as an emergent Baptist) believe - and it would be practical to have it for evangelization or so…

The Bible yes. The Book of Mormon conforms to the Bible without a doubt. That is not an issue. But certainly not with Protwstantism.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Despite its length it will not give you a comprehensive view of our beliefs, this mainly covers the apostasy. It is the only literature printed by the church that I know of that is Anti-Catholic in nature. I believe this was done only as a means to explain the apostasy from a historical view as well as a scriptural doctrinal view.

I am worried that it may be to offensive to catholics so I hesitated posting it but one of the questions in this thread posted by another person was wanting proof of the apostasy so I posted what the LDS Church explanation is on the subject.

It took me 5 days to read and study just this section. I hope that it is not to offensive because despite the criticisms leveled in this book I know that our church leaders work very well with your church leaders in doing the real work of the lord which is serving those who are in need.

I am curiouse
Have you made a study of the Saints of the Catholic Church?
Does the LDS church teach the children about these souls?

Do the LDS children know of Saint Justin?
Saint Lawrence?
Saint Issac Jouges?
Saint John of the Cross?

Oh my God, and the women Saints of the Church, thousand upon thousands
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0001.html

Do your children learn about these who gave all to God?

With much love
In Christ Jesus
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[PopeBono]

Our studies are based on the Old Testament, the New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
We generally do not do in-depth studies at church on anyone person with the exception of Jesus Christ. We will study the teachings of individuals but generally not too much about the actual person. I would say that there would be a familiarity with who most of the Catholic Saints from an LDS perspective so long as they are in the Bible. We would not know much about Saints after that time period.

 

[JHow]

Hello all:

Forgive me for butting in on your long discussion, but this thread centers on the very question I had in coming to this forum. I read through the posts here and it seems fair to me to say that there are two distinct understandings of the Trinity going on here:

1. Roman Catholic, Nicene Creed, labelled “Apostate” by Mormons
2. Mormon, labeled “Biblical” by Mormons, but not accepted by Roman Catholics (and I would assume most Protestants?).

I perceive that Mormons distinctly dislike being labelled “not Christian”, but with such a fundamental difference at the heart of these two religions, what terminology can be used to draw this distinction? This kind of difference can’t be papered over in my view, which is not to say we can’t be civil to each other, but fundamentally these appear to be to very distinct religious systems. How to call each, being accurate in description, and hopefully not annoying each other, is my first question?

If you would indulge me in a second question in a single post, can any of you tell me if there are any other religious groups that hold to an interpretation of the Trinity that is the same as, or close to, the Mormon system, or is that a unique feature of that group? I always thought that Protestants were close to (or exactly same as) the Nicene understanding of the Trinity, but reading through the posts here I am amazed at the breadth of knowledge from both sides of this debate, so I am sure you folks will provide lot’s of info.

Thanks,

Jim H.

 

[PopeBono]

We are accustomed to being referred to as non-Christian.
Our Core Doctrine and even the the name of our Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints all signify of Christ. We are understand that people do not view us as Christians or that we believe in a different Jesus that other Faiths, but at the same time we understand that is the viewpoint of our faith by people of other faith. There is not much we can do about that but try to explain it.

Our belief of the Savior is that he is the only begotten and literal Son of God Creator of all things, He was born exactly as outlined in the Gospels of the new testament. He lived a perfect life, free of sin and he fulfilled the will of the Father and through him and him alone can salvation be found.
He had 3 major events in his life that were crowning as Savior.

1. Gethsemane- In this sacred Garden he partook of the bitter cup. He experienced personally for every living soul their exact Joys, Sorrow, Fears, temptations and every other emotion that we experience in our lives. So great was this burden that it caused him to sweat blood from every pour of his body. Through this experience we can go to him and ask for his redeeming power to help us through our trials and to help us what we cannot do by ourselves. Because of Gethsemane he knows our exact experience and he while in Gethsemane overcame whatever our difficulty or temptation was and thus he has the answer if we but turn to him and follow him. Through this experience he is able to plead to the Father for our forgiveness on our behalf
2. Golgotha- The Cross where he sealed up his testimony of the living God and his own life by freely giving of his own life. He could not be killed he when he declared " it is finished" He gave freely his life for our salvation.
3. His Resurrection- Christ overcame the chains of Death and rose Physically 3 days later. Through his resurrection all mankind will also be resurrected.

I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He is our Redeemer and Savior. If people want to say we are not Christians that is their agency to do so but I know who I am and I know who HE is and a someone else’s view cannot change that within me.

As far as other Faiths that share the view that Catholic Trinity is actually 3 separate beings . I do know that there are some faiths that share that belief but I do not belong to those Churches and do not feel the liberty to speak for them or interpret their beliefs on the subject. I am sure if anyone from those faiths are reading this post they will post their view.

 

[Pregustator]

I confess I have not read through all the pages and pages of responses to the original post, so I’ll just comment on the topic, itself.

Like some of the responders to this topic, however, I will say that I was aware of no particular “struggle” between Catholics and Mormons. I think we generally tend not to give each other much thought, to be honest.

As a Roman Catholic, I do not believe in the authenticity of the Mormon religion, of course. I think Joseph Smith’s alleged revelations are all a wild story made up by a disturbed man, to be frank. Obviously, not one iota of the story of people sailing from Jerusalem to America is true; neither the rest about Christ coming to America. Sheer nonsense, of course

Nevertheless, I have no animosity toward Mormons. In fact earlier this Summer I went to the LDS’s annual pageant in Palmyra, New York, where the LDS Church has its roots. I was invited, in fact, by a friend who happens to be a Catholic priest. We both went out of curiosity, just to see what it was all about.

The very first thing that struck me, upon arrival, was all the Evangelical “Christians” who had showed up to protest the event in the loudest, most obnoxious way. They handed out pamphlets against Mormonism to all attending (most of whom would have been Mormons, of course), and two of them stood there at the entrance of this place revered by Mormons shouting at everyone through bullhorns! And the things they were shouting could not possibly have been more insulting, incidentally; there was no finesse in their approach, at all. There was certainly no charity in any of it, that’s for sure…or class.

I don’t know what they might have been thinking, showing up like that, and shouting insults over bullhorns at Mormons on the Mormons’ own turf! It was so unpardonably rude and ill-mannered, for one thing, and so appalling a thing to witness. I felt so badly for these poor people, having their religion mercilessly mocked by a bunch of self-righteous jerks on their own sacred space. The Mormons, however, handled it with grace, serenity, and dignity. Each LDS person I encountered in fact, to a man, was the model of hospitality, warmth, and friendliness. Not one tried to shove his religion at me, either.

The Evangelicals, by contrast, could not have been more shockingly rude, boistrous, insulting, and altogether un-Christian in their demeanor. I was, as I say, utterly appalled by their disgraceful behaviour. It was absolutely disgusting.

I can just imagine how these Evangelicals would react if a group of Mormons showed up at their sacred space and protested the Evangelical Protestant religion, handing out tracts and shouting insults at them with bullhorns. It’s clear from their behaviour at this event that they would not react with the same grace and dignity that the Mormons did. I imagine the response would be rather violent.

So, after witnessing what I did that day at the birthplace of Joseph Smith in Palmyra, I don’t know what on earth the OP is talking about when he cites “angst” between Catholics and Mormons. There were no Catholics shouting at the Mormons that day. Just Evangelicals.

 

[SirThomasMore]

We are accustomed to being referred to as non-Christian.
Our Core Doctrine and even the the name of our Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints all signify of Christ. We are understand that people do not view us as Christians or that we believe in a different Jesus that other Faiths, but at the same time we understand that is the viewpoint of our faith by people of other faith. There is not much we can do about that but try to explain it.

Our belief of the Savior is that he is the only begotten and literal Son of God Creator of all things, He was born exactly as outlined in the Gospels of the new testament. He lived a perfect life, free of sin and he fulfilled the will of the Father and through him and him alone can salvation be found.
He had 3 major events in his life that were crowning as Savior.

1. Gethsemane- In this sacred Garden he partook of the bitter cup. He experienced personally for every living soul their exact Joys, Sorrow, Fears, temptations and every other emotion that we experience in our lives. So great was this burden that it caused him to sweat blood from every pour of his body. Through this experience we can go to him and ask for his redeeming power to help us through our trials and to help us what we cannot do by ourselves. Because of Gethsemane he knows our exact experience and he while in Gethsemane overcame whatever our difficulty or temptation was and thus he has the answer if we but turn to him and follow him. Through this experience he is able to plead to the Father for our forgiveness on our behalf
2. Golgotha- The Cross where he sealed up his testimony of the living God and his own life by freely giving of his own life. He could not be killed he when he declared " it is finished" He gave freely his life for our salvation.
3. His Resurrection- Christ overcame the chains of Death and rose Physically 3 days later. Through his resurrection all mankind will also be resurrected.

I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He is our Redeemer and Savior. If people want to say we are not Christians that is their agency to do so but I know who I am and I know who HE is and a someone else’s view cannot change that within me.

Yes, we all know you use the name “Christ”. But I can call me “John Wayne” and just because I have the same name does not make me the same person.

The Jesus you claim to worship has very little in common with the true Christ. Get rid of the LDS heretical beliefs, ditch the false prophets and follow the True Christ and you will be called Christians

 

[Todd520]

You had better reread the Bible and understand it, or are you putting your own spin on it?
The three separate Persons and one nature is evident. Jesus said “I and the Father are One”, “The Father is in Me and I am in the Father”. What do thse mean to you? Also, only the Spirit’s “groanings” can describe the Father and the Son. This also means one Nature. There are many passages that describe the one Nature of the Three. There are no “three distinct gods” but One God, one Nature, and Three Persons with that One Nature.

Javl, below I am providing ample evidence that an alternative interpretation has a strong biblical foundation. Naturally, we can’t agree on whose interpreation is right, but we can recognize there is evidence.

LDS believe there is no explicit teaching in the Bible that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the LDS do believe the Bible does articulate three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) with one purpose.

Genesis shows God the father and his son together from the beginning (but seperate), and that we were created in his image.
“And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.” (Gen. 1:26).
the LORD said, “Behold, the man is hecome as one of us, to know good and evil” (Gen. 3:22).
the LORD said, “Let us go down, and there confound their language…” (Gen. 11:7)
The Bible also contains hundreds of passages which indicate that God the Father, God the Son Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Ghost are all separate, holy, divine beings. Though separate beings, often seen in or manifested from separate places at the same time (Mt. 3:16-17; Mt. 17:1-5; Jn. 12:28; Acts 7:55-56; Mk. 16:19; etc.), the Bible clearly indicates that they are separate individuals who fulfill separate functions (Jn. 5:17-22, 3O-36; 13:3; 14:26-28; 15:26; 16:5-7; Eph. 2:18; etc.). They are united and agree in purpose, functioning for the benefit of those here on earth

The apostle John speaks of the three members of the Godhead and their combined mission, saying, “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one, and there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (1 Jn. 5:7-8).

 

[JHow]

PopeBono:

Thanks for replying to my question. I think I understood you to say you prefer the label “Christian”, for the reason that Christ is the central figure of your belief-system, but that you are used to being called “not-Christian”?

Does that mean you feel enough of a difference between your beliefs and Roman Catholicism that you might accept a separate label, if an appropriate one could be devised? (You can say “No way”, if I am way off base here.)

For example, Roman Catholics believe that Jesus is the fulfilment of Old Testament scriptures but we don’t refer to ourselves as Jews. Does a similar dynamic exist with Mormonism (is it something new and different) or is it more properly viewed as a continuation or correction of Christian tradition?

Forgive my ignorance, but what is prompting my questions is that I only recently became aware of the strong feelings some Mormons have about not being considered Christian. I had figured that Mormons had their own tradition and that it didn’t intersect much with Catholicism, and that no one would be offend by being different. I have no great knowldege of your faith. The only time I was approached by your missionaries was on a very cold December day in Morskie Oko park in Warsaw, Poland. Those two guys were so cold, and so homesick, that once they found out I am American they lost focus of their mission and we talked about everything but theology.

I may be on a fool’s errand, here. There may be no way to reconcile the label problem. I can just be more sensitive when I talk to folks how each side feels.

 

[dianaiad]

I am curiouse
Have you made a study of the Saints of the Catholic Church?
Does the LDS church teach the children about these souls?

Do the LDS children know of Saint Justin?
Saint Lawrence?
Saint Issac Jouges?
Saint John of the Cross?

Oh my God, and the women Saints of the Church, thousand upon thousands
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0001.html

Do your children learn about these who gave all to God?

With much love
In Christ Jesus
Rich
www.utahmission.com

No, we don’t. Why should we? I know that sounds a little brash, but…we don’t believe that your Saints are, in truth, elevated above those who have also lived righteous and faithful, (albeit quieter, perhaps) lives. We do not dishonor them, mock or denigrate them, but we don’t think that they are any more special than the folks of our own faith history…who were every inch as righteous, may have produced miracles, and who, I’m quite certain, YOU don’t know didley about…or think deserve canonization.

 

[dianaiad]

Hello all:

Forgive me for butting in on your long discussion, but this thread centers on the very question I had in coming to this forum. I read through the posts here and it seems fair to me to say that there are two distinct understandings of the Trinity going on here:

1. Roman Catholic, Nicene Creed, labelled “Apostate” by Mormons
2. Mormon, labeled “Biblical” by Mormons, but not accepted by Roman Catholics (and I would assume most Protestants?).

I perceive that Mormons distinctly dislike being labelled “not Christian”, but with such a fundamental difference at the heart of these two religions, what terminology can be used to draw this distinction?

How about 'not Catholic," or “Not Protestant?” We aren’t either one of those. We are, however, Christian.

This kind of difference can’t be papered over in my view, which is not to say we can’t be civil to each other, but fundamentally these appear to be to very distinct religious systems. How to call each, being accurate in description, and hopefully not annoying each other, is my first question?

Look to motive. WHY are some Christians bound and determined to deny that Mormons are Christians? Remember, many of these same Christians deny that Catholics are Christian, or that JW’s are, or Lutherans are, or SDA’s are, or…???

Once you identify the motive for the denial, you will be very, very close to understanding why those being targeted might be uncomfortable with being told that they are not Christian.

If you would indulge me in a second question in a single post, can any of you tell me if there are any other religious groups that hold to an interpretation of the Trinity that is the same as, or close to, the Mormon system, or is that a unique feature of that group? I always thought that Protestants were close to (or exactly same as) the Nicene understanding of the Trinity, but reading through the posts here I am amazed at the breadth of knowledge from both sides of this debate, so I am sure you folks will provide lot’s of info.

Thanks,

Jim H.

I don’t honestly know…but you are quite correct. From where I stand, there is so much difference between the various Christian faiths in doctrine and dogma that it is assinine for any Christian belief system to decide that any specific doctrine is required for inclusion–other than, of course, believing in the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth and claiming the name.

 

[zerinus]

Hello all:

Forgive me for butting in on your long discussion, but this thread centers on the very question I had in coming to this forum. I read through the posts here and it seems fair to me to say that there are two distinct understandings of the Trinity going on here:

1. Roman Catholic, Nicene Creed, labelled “Apostate” by Mormons
2. Mormon, labeled “Biblical” by Mormons, but not accepted by Roman Catholics (and I would assume most Protestants?).

I perceive that Mormons distinctly dislike being labelled “not Christian”, but with such a fundamental difference at the heart of these two religions, what terminology can be used to draw this distinction?

I can think of one: We will call ourselves true Christians, and call you guys apostate Christians! That is a distinction, isn’t it? What is wrong with that?

This kind of difference can’t be papered over in my view, which is not to say we can’t be civil to each other, but fundamentally these appear to be to very distinct religious systems. How to call each, being accurate in description, and hopefully not annoying each other, is my first question?

If you want us to be civil and not annoy each other, then I suppose we could call ourselves Mormons and you can call yourselves Catholics. Is that acceptable, or do we need to go further?

If you would indulge me in a second question in a single post, can any of you tell me if there are any other religious groups that hold to an interpretation of the Trinity that is the same as, or close to, the Mormon system, or is that a unique feature of that group?

Yes, the early Christians did.

I always thought that Protestants were close to (or exactly same as) the Nicene understanding of the Trinity, but reading through the posts here I am amazed at the breadth of knowledge from both sides of this debate, so I am sure you folks will provide lot’s of info.

Well protestants belong to the same Apostate tradition, so there is nothing surprising in that.