What Should Catholics Call Mormons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
đŸ„± Semantics. All of the above were more Trinitarian in scope than you seem to suggest and certainly in their liturgical practice more closely resembled the Catholic liturgical norms than that of the Mormon liturgical norms; since this is what you’re really after. Scholarly commentary as to where their theological bend best situates itself categorically in an era privy to such introspection is undoubtedly not a tally in your favor. Do demonstrate from their works, not others commentary, how they were less trinitarian than actually were.

Also, given the continuing existence of revelation to you and your kin shouldn’t you be more sympathetic to the view that doctrine can evolve? đŸ€”
 
When this change came out, my high-schoolers attended a heavily Mormon school, with a healthy minority of Catholics. Collectively, the kids (both Catholic and Mormon) decided that Mormons would henceforth be known as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Catholics would be known as members of the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. It had a good run of a couple of months.
 
Diaconia said:
Not at all, the universal accepted definition to this very day, from the very beginning.

Sacred Tradition predates the New Testament by decades.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could demonstrate - for the benefit of @gazelam - where in this ‘Sacred Tradition (that) predates the New Testament by decades’ he will find - clearly expressed - the doctrine of the Trinity; and the doctrine that ‘Jesus is truly God and truly man.’

And please address your answer to him, after all, he is the one who raised the matter.

Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
It really depends on the context.

“Which church do you attend?”
“The church.”
“Um, OK. Which church?”
"The church!"
Click to expand...
What is their full name? They renamed themselves to “The Church?”
 
It’s is true that Islam and the Church of Jesus Christ share a similarities in that both believe in post-Biblical scripture and a post-Biblical prophet.

However, it’s also true that there are similarities between Islam and mainstream Christianity. Consider these:
  1. Man did not exist in a pre-mortal state.
  2. The family structure in mortality does not carry over into the next life, i.e., no marriage in the hereafter.
  3. There is no ontological similarity between God and man. (Latter-day Saints believe that man is literally offspring of God in some sense.)
  4. Interestingly there is a historical similarity between the Nicene Creed and the Koran. At the Council of Nicea there was a debate as to whether Jesus was created (Arian) or uncreated (Trinitarian). The Trinitarian view won the day. Several hundred years after Mohammed brought forth the Koran there was a debate as to whether the Koran was created or uncreated. (The question being that since the Koran is the word of God and God is eternal, is the Koran therefore eternal (i.e., uncreated) also? The “uncreated” faction won the debate. (See Quranic createdness - Wikipedia for more information.)
 
They said to either call them by their full name without the LDS abbreviation or just “the church” or “the church of Jesus Christ.”
 
Most, if not all, of these Justin Martyr quotes aligns with Latter-day Saint belief. (I’d have to delve into the “unbegotten, unutterable God” phrasing a bit to give the 100% thumbs up.) Note that this passage says nothing about the Holy Spirit being co-equal, co-eternal with God, and also assumes that the Son is subordinate to the Father. So there are gaping Trinitarian holes in these quotes.

Note the non-Trinitarian subordinationism in this statement.

Regarding Justin Martyr, Edmund J. Fortman says the following:

On several occasions Justin coordinates the three persons, sometimes citing formulas derived from baptism and the eucharist, sometimes echoing official catechetical teaching. He worshipped the Father as Supreme in the universe; he worshipped the Logos or Son as divine but in the second place ; he worshipped the Holy Spirit in the third place. But he has no real doctrine of the Trinity , for he says nothing of the relations of the three to one another and to the Godhead . (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 47

Leo Donald Davis states “Though a step forward in Trinitarian thought, it is clear that Tertullian’s view is still somewhat immersed in the sensible. Spirit is for him really only attenuated matter, and imagination so pervaded his thinking that he could explain the unity of the divine substance in terms of an organic continuity and of accord within the human monarchy. His view as father and Son as of one quasi-material substance is different from the consubstantiality (homoousian) that will form the basis of Nicaea’s pronouncements.” (Leo Donald Davis, SJ, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Liturgical Press, pg 45)

“There was a time,“ he [Tertullian] said, “when there was no son to make God a Father.” (Leo Donald Davis, SJ, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Liturgical Press, pg 45)
 
Last edited:
Leo Donald Davis states “For him [Hippolytus of Rome] the generation of the Word was the progressive development, the Word appearing as Son only at a time determined by the Father. Hippolytus described the process thus: while existing alone, God yet existed in plurality, for he was not without reason, wisdom, power and counsel. Determining to create the universe, He begat the Word through whom all things come to be. God next made the Word visible, uttering Him and begetting him as the Light of Light, in order that the world might see Him in His manifestation and be capable of being saved. Thus there appeared another beside God himself, but there are not two gods, but only Light from Light, in order that the world might see Him and His manifestation and be capable of being saved. Thus their appeared another beside God himself, but there are not two Gods, but only Light from Light, Word coming from God as water from the fountain or as a ray from the sun. This is the Word which came into the world and was manifested as Son. Prior to his incarnation, The Lord was not yet perfect Son, although He was the perfect, only begotten word. He was manifested as perfect Son of God only when He took flesh.” (Leo Donald Davis, SJ, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Liturgical Press, pg 45, 46)

None of these writers are expressing Trinitarian ideas.
 
Do you have any references to support this statement? In debating this point I quoted a Jesuit (Davis) and a a Catholic Saint (Newman) canonized just last year.

For the record, my church takes no formal position on which belief was supported by which Early Church Father.
 
If the play is to change history books and names used in the past they will fail miserably. “Mormon” settlers won’t be changed in history.
 
Wrong gazelam. His writings dont align to your church. Your church and its teachings try to align itself with his writings to try and make yourself seem christian. Your church was only started 200 years ago. How does that make sense?
 
This obsession with the church name is an idiosyncrasy of the current Mormon prophet and doesn’t reflect either the history or member preferences. Regarding the name of the church, here’s the key quote from the Book of Mormon:
And how be it my name save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.
Click to expand...
But oddly enough they did not call it the Church of Christ or anything similar, they called it the longest and most cumbersome name of any major religion. Presumably because the members in Joseph Smith’s time could not agree and this was a political solution, to merge the two names that were the top contenders. But the clumsy solution is still causing problems.

I am fine with being called Mormon. In fact I like it, it’s short and distinct. Also, it emphasizes our belief in the Book of Mormon which not only is unique but still our Pearl of Great Price in the biblical sense, not the related scripture of the same name.
 
rmcmullan said:
Also, it emphasizes our belief in the Book of Mormon which not only is unique but still our Pearl of Great Price in the biblical sense, not the related scripture of the same name.
Click to expand...
I did wonder that! Did your church leadership intend to be consistent so as to extend the name change all the way to your holy book?

Your post provides the clarification and comfort that I need - thank you!
 
I am a Jewish man, but I have a lot of interest in comparative religion. Although I have never done interreligious dialogue directly with Mormons, I have read the Book of Mormon in order to read the whole scriptures of all the Monotheistic religions. From what I read, the Mormons consider themselves as the best Christians in the world and as a return to Jesus’s original church, but I saw it does not go together, because the Book of Mormon is full with, excuse me for my French, non-Christian and even pagan crap. A Catholic priest from the Vatican told me once that according to Magisterium of the Catholic church, the Mormons are not Christians because although their baptism is in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit like any other denomination which practises baptism, they divide the trinity to 3 different persons and do not believe in Trinity as one God who has 3 persons, and that is their sin and because of that they are not fully Christians (and of course, the fact that they believe in Book of Mormon is the matter here).
 
Yes, whether or not they’re Christian is hotly debated; indeed, we could host (and most likely have hosted) a lot of threads on the topic. Even if we suppose that they are, just for the sake of argument, Christianity comes with denominations formed based on theological disagreement. If Christians from churches that are Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. can give themselves a more specific name, so can Mormons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top