What Should Catholics Call Mormons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I asked first. Do you admonish them for sinning by having delusions? That is the question at hand.
 
Here’s your answer…

In this case, the analogy may or may not apply… it depends on the degree of culpability.

The sin exists in the form of the act, not the illness. Furthermore, if the person is not aware that the act is a sin, then the person is not culpable. If on the other hand he/she is, then it is. In the case of someone that is ill, resisting the act can be a heavy cross to bear… I do not by any means deny or attempt to diminish that. Hence, it is that much more cowardly, disingenuous, unloving, and yes… sinful, to enable and deprive such a person truth-based support, and address the disorder accordingly.

Yes, we can be loving to someone suffering from schizophrenia without validating a false reality and feeding a delusion that he/she is indeed an alien from another planet.
 
Last edited:
How slippery! Sorry, not buying it. Either you treat illnesses differently than sins or you don’t. I am done.
 
I’m confident that you understand the difference between an illness that fuels temptation towards an act, and an act in it of itself.
 
Last edited:
You’re not wrong. Worf was always my favorite. So dedicated to his heritage. Geordie LaForge was always a close second for me.
 
Is there a point in there, or do you just like to have the last word? Feel free to take it. I decline to keep attempting to get a straight answer here.
 
Instead of refuting my argument and pointing out where exactly I failed to give a “straight answer,” you express frustration. That’s ok, have a good one.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, very true. And he always had that specific intonation:

“This is Commander RIKER of the Federation Starship ENTERPRISE”
 
I have a difficult time using the name of my Savior when referring to the Mormon church.
 
I won’t call them Christian, because they’re really not, by their own beliefs. If they don’t want to be called “Mormon”, that’s fine (though odd, since their website has that in it). If they’re ok with “LDS”, I’m happy to use that.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
I do not go to CNN for religious information, they are a commercial news outlet.

I go to my sister & BIL, who are members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, or to my friends/neighbors who belong to this religion, what they wish to be called. They all tell me that LDS is fine.
Click to expand...
Please ask them what should members of their church be called.

Members of the Catholic Church are called Catholics. Members of the Baptists churches are called Baptists. Members of the Orthodox churches are called Orthodox. So please ask them what should we call members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints?
 
Theology aside, their request is unreasonable on a semantic level. The reason people call them “Mormons” or “LDS” is because those are terms unique to that religious group which are quick and easy to say.

Calling them “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” is too long and would cause conversations to grind to a halt. Calling them “the church” meanwhile is too vague - if you’re talking about something that religion’s leadership did and you say “the church did this” then people won’t know who you’re talking about.
 
Last edited:
BornInMarch said:
Theology aside, their request is unreasonable on a semantic level. The reason people call them “Mormons” or “LDS” is because those are terms unique to that religious group which are quick and easy to say.

Calling them “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” is too long and would cause conversations to grind to a halt. Calling them “the church” meanwhile is too vague - if you’re talking about something that religion’s leadership did and you say “the church did this” then people won’t know who you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
Also I wouldn’t anyway use the long name because it contains Jesus Christ. They are not Christians. In fact their religion is a perversion of Christianity.
 
Montrose said:
Also I wouldn’t anyway use the long name because it contains Jesus Christ. They are not Christians. In fact their religion is a perversion of Christianity.
Click to expand...
While Mormon Christology is significantly different than the Catholic Christology or even mainstream Protestant Christology, the Jesus of Nazareth is still a central figure in Mormon theology.

In terms of terminology, it’s hard to define a Christian in the general sense of the word. The dictionary definition is “a follower of the teachings of Jesus” but there’s disagreement about what said teachings were.

This is assuming one wants to use neutral terminology out of respect for fellow humans. If that isn’t the goal then I should warn that just calling every non-Catholic “Heretic” would be considered rude even by other Catholics.
 
BornInMarch said:
While Mormon Christology is significantly different than the Catholic Christology or even mainstream Protestant Christology, the Jesus of Nazareth is still a central figure in Mormon theology.

In terms of terminology, it’s hard to define a Christian in the general sense of the word. The dictionary definition is “a follower of the teachings of Jesus” but there’s disagreement about what said teachings were.

This is assuming one wants to use neutral terminology out of respect for fellow humans. If that isn’t the goal then I should warn that just calling every non-Catholic “Heretic” would be considered rude even by other Catholics.
Click to expand...
He is a perverted Christ in Mormonism. They believe in a false Trinity. They believe Jesus was a man who became a God. It’s all nonsense and Mormons should not be mentioned in the same breath as Catholics and mainstream Protestants.
 
I’ll repeat myself, if you go around calling people perverts or heretics then some may consider it a sign of rudeness.
 
BornInMarch said:
Calling them “the church” meanwhile is too vague - if you’re talking about something that religion’s leadership did and you say “the church did this” then people won’t know who you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
BornInMarch said:
This is assuming one wants to use neutral terminology out of respect for fellow humans.
Click to expand...
Unless I’m misinterpreting it, it just sounds (here goes . . . ) arrogant and anything but neutral. I go to a church and they go to the church. It really is OK to say what kind of church you attend. Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. don’t seem to have any problem with it. I’m with you on the issue of avoiding rudeness, but their semantical demands seem over-the-top to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top