It'S Not The Mormon Church!

[Scott Lloyd]

I have a younger brother named John, and my dearly departed Mother, bless her soul, was always getting our names wrong. But we always knew from the context who she was scolding . . .

I used to find it puzzling that my mom and dad did this sort of thing -- until in early middle-age I became the father of more than one child and became subject to the same characteristic. I chuckle that some of our youngsters will occasionally correct me, even though they know I know better.

[Walden]

I find it humorous that LDS members get so defensive about the "offical" name of the church. As if use of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" instead of the more common term, "the Mormon church," will do anything to persuade non-members that the LDS church is in fact Christian. You do know that there are beliefs and practices within the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that form the basis of mainstream Christianity's disdain towards Mormon's calling themselves Christians, and that their disdain is not just over a name, no? Even if "Christian's" can accept that Mormon's believe in the divinity and salvation through Christ, there are a number of theological differences that still remain (namely, large differences in belief regarding the the nature of God, the nature of the godhead, grace vs. works, use of the Book of Mormon, etc., etc., etc.) that cannot be fixed by a name change.

If people are really hung up on the name of a particular church, then I expect that all those here who are concerned with the name will now refer to other religions by their full name as well.

The Lutheran church should now be referred to as "The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America" (the official name of the largest Lutheran body in the USA).

The Episcopal church should now be referred to as the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" (the official name of the largest Episcopal body in the USA).

And on and on.....

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it humorous that LDS members get so defensive about the "offical" name of the church. As if use of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" instead of the more common term, "the Mormon church," will do anything to persuade non-members that the LDS church is in fact Christian. You do know that there are beliefs and practices within the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that form the basis of mainstream Christianity's disdain towards Mormon's calling themselves Christians, and that their disdain is not just over a name, no? Even if "Christian's" can accept that Mormon's believe in the divinity and salvation through Christ, there are a number of theological differences that still remain (namely, large differences in belief regarding the the nature of God, the nature of the godhead, grace vs. works, use of the Book of Mormon, etc., etc., etc.) that cannot be fixed by a name change.

If people are really hung up on the name of a particular church, then I expect that all those here who are concerned with the name will now refer to other religions by their full name as well.

The Lutheran church should now be referred to as "The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America" (the official name of the largest Lutheran body in the USA).

The Episcopal church should now be referred to as the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" (the official name of the largest Episcopal body in the USA).

And on and on.....

Already addressed in Post #80

[Mark Beesley]

I used to find it puzzling that my mom and dad did this sort of thing -- until in early middle-age I became the father of more than one child and became subject to the same characteristic. I chuckle that some of our youngsters will occasionally correct me, even though they know I know better.

I hear ya. My wife is always correcting me when I call one of my children by the wrong name. She's only had to correct me once for calling her by the wrong name . . .

[thesometimesaint]

I find it humorous that LDS members get so defensive about the "offical" name of the church. As if use of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" instead of the more common term, "the Mormon church," will do anything to persuade non-members that the LDS church is in fact Christian. You do know that there are beliefs and practices within the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that form the basis of mainstream Christianity's disdain towards Mormon's calling themselves Christians, and that their disdain is not just over a name, no? Even if "Christian's" can accept that Mormon's believe in the divinity and salvation through Christ, there are a number of theological differences that still remain (namely, large differences in belief regarding the the nature of God, the nature of the godhead, grace vs. works, use of the Book of Mormon, etc., etc., etc.) that cannot be fixed by a name change.

If people are really hung up on the name of a particular church, then I expect that all those here who are concerned with the name will now refer to other religions by their full name as well.

The Lutheran church should now be referred to as "The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America" (the official name of the largest Lutheran body in the USA).

The Episcopal church should now be referred to as the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" (the official name of the largest Episcopal body in the USA).

And on and on.....

That is not the name of this Church. It actually belongs to a small offshoot(Strangite). The correct name of this Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Walden]

Already addressed in Post #80

Per post 80....What it does do is assert our self-definition and sustain it in the face of the continuing falsehood that we are not Christian. If we affirm the proper name of the Church, those who deny our Christianity are compelled to explain why they do so.

And this is exactly what I am arguing in my post above. A simple correction of the use of the LDS church's proper name does nothing to prove that the LDS church is Christian. The term "Christianity", as it used commonly used and understood today, encompasses much more than just a simple belief in salvation through Christ. Now, if you want to argue whether or not the term "Christianity", as the term is used and understood today, has veered from it's original meaning and has been "stolen" by fallen churches, well that is another discussion altogether. My argument refers to today's commonly accepted and commonly understood view of the definition of "Christianity."

You can call the LDS church anything that you want, but the simple fact remains that broad acceptance of the LDS church as a "Christian" church has little to do with a name, and is rooted in LDS views on god and his nature, the nature of the godhead itself, LDS acceptance and belief in the Book of Mormon, the role of grace and works, etc, etc., etc. The fact is that the LDS church has major differences with mainstream Christianity regarding the most basic beliefs of the respective religions, and I think that it is somewhat naive to think that correcting someone with regard to the proper name of the LDS church will go very far in changing others views regarding the core beliefs of the LDS church, and how they conflict with modern Christianity.

[MiserereNobis]

I find it humorous that LDS members get so defensive about the "offical" name of the church. As if use of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" instead of the more common term, "the Mormon church," will do anything to persuade non-members that the LDS church is in fact Christian. You do know that there are beliefs and practices within the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that form the basis of mainstream Christianity's disdain towards Mormon's calling themselves Christians, and that their disdain is not just over a name, no? Even if "Christian's" can accept that Mormon's believe in the divinity and salvation through Christ, there are a number of theological differences that still remain (namely, large differences in belief regarding the the nature of God, the nature of the godhead, grace vs. works, use of the Book of Mormon, etc., etc., etc.) that cannot be fixed by a name change.

If people are really hung up on the name of a particular church, then I expect that all those here who are concerned with the name will now refer to other religions by their full name as well.

The Lutheran church should now be referred to as "The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America" (the official name of the largest Lutheran body in the USA).

The Episcopal church should now be referred to as the "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" (the official name of the largest Episcopal body in the USA).

And on and on.....

From this point forward on this board, I would like the Catholic Church to be called, as stated in the Creed: The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anyone who does otherwise is being rude.

Edited October 31, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[sheilauk]

I have a younger brother named John, and my dearly departed Mother, bless her soul, was always getting our names wrong. But we always knew from the context who she was scolding . . .

My father always gets names wrong too - from his wife through children, grandchildren and neighbours and we usually know who he means too - but not always! We also generally correct him - just for the fun of it! (I know, bit mean but I'm not perfect by any means!).

When I chose those two names, I had the Gospel writers in mind and hoped it wouldn't apply to anyone specifically - sorry!

[MiserereNobis]

You can call the LDS church anything that you want, but the simple fact remains that broad acceptance of the LDS church as a "Christian" church has little to do with a name, and is rooted in LDS views on god and his nature, the nature of the godhead itself, LDS acceptance and belief in the Book of Mormon, the role of grace and works, etc, etc., etc. The fact is that the LDS church has major differences with mainstream Christianity regarding the most basic beliefs of the respective religions, and I think that it is somewhat naive to think that correcting someone with regard to the proper name of the LDS church will go very far in changing others views regarding the core beliefs of the LDS church, and how they conflict with modern Christianity.

This is key. If someone says that the LDS church is not Christian, the response that the church has Jesus Christ in the official name is not going to sway anyone. Honestly, it comes off as a childish response, because the argument is not over the name, but over doctrines and practices. Anyone can call anything whatever they want. As I pointed out earlier, North Korea's official name is: Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If you told a North Korean that they were living in autocratic dictatorship, and they responded "but our name has Democratic in it!" you probably wouldn't be swayed either.

[thesometimesaint]

This is key. If someone says that the LDS church is not Christian, the response that the church has Jesus Christ in the official name is not going to sway anyone. Honestly, it comes off as a childish response, because the argument is not over the name, but over doctrines and practices. Anyone can call anything whatever they want. As I pointed out earlier, North Korea's official name is: Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If you told a North Korean that they were living in autocratic dictatorship, and they responded "but our name has Democratic in it!" you probably wouldn't be swayed either.

You can call us a ham sandwich for all its worth. However to do so is an obfuscation. Given the historic doctrines and practices of your church in the religious persecutions of those it considered not Christian. Childish is the last thing that comes to mind.

[sheilauk]

From this point forward on this board, I would like the Catholic Church to be called, as stated in the Creed: The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anyone who does otherwise is being rude.

Well, if the Catholic Church's official name was its creed, then I might - but since it even signs its documents as the Catholic Church and I know of at least one other church, which is not connected to Rome, that states in its creed that it is part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I don't think i would be rude in saying the Catholic Church.

As for the others mentioned by Walden, well, I don't know all the various different US churches, and I don't know their names. If I am speaking specifically about those churches and not Evangelical, Episcopal, Lutheran or Protestant churches in general (all highly unlikely), I will endeavour to use the correct names as seen on their websites, letter heads etc, so ELCA it would be. (I don't like to use nicknames or shorten names, even of my family and friends! I try to be proper!).

There is no reason for someone who doesn't know the full name to use it. There is no excuse for members and journalists and even bloggers (research?) not to use it, when referring specifically to (what I think is, correct me if I'm wrong here) the largest mormon church.

[MiserereNobis]

You can call us a ham sandwich for all its worth. However to do so is an obfuscation. Given the historic doctrines and practices of your church in the religious persecutions of those it considered not Christian. Childish is the last thing that comes to mind.

This is a textbook example of a red herring

[MiserereNobis]

Well, if the Catholic Church's official name was its creed, then I might - but since it even signs its documents as the Catholic Church and I know of at least one other church, which is not connected to Rome, that states in its creed that it is part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I don't think i would be rude in saying the Catholic Church.

As for the others mentioned by Walden, well, I don't know all the various different US churches, and I don't know their names. If I am speaking specifically about those churches and not Evangelical, Episcopal, Lutheran or Protestant churches in general (all highly unlikely), I will endeavour to use the correct names as seen on their websites, letter heads etc, so ELCA it would be. (I don't like to use nicknames or shorten names, even of my family and friends! I try to be proper!).

There is no reason for someone who doesn't know the full name to use it. There is no excuse for members and journalists and even bloggers (research?) not to use it, when referring specifically to (what I think is, correct me if I'm wrong here) the largest mormon church.

I meant it as a joke -- sorry if it didn't come off that way. You can call us Catholics, Roman Catholics, RCC, whatever works (just try to avoid the beast of the apocalypse or the whore of babylon, please... ha!)

[thesometimesaint]

All the other offshoots of this Church are small to very small in comparison. The largest by far is the Community of Christ. It has about about 1/4 of a million members world wide.

[thesometimesaint]

This is a textbook example of a red herring

The name of any organization is central to its identity. To willfully distort its name is an attempt to deceive. Ignorance can be cure it's called knowledge. Willful distortion is something else. The Church repeatedly has asked that in publications that the official name of the Church be used at least somewhere in the article.

TTBOMK the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church has not done so.

You're the one whom brought up doctrines and practices.

[MiserereNobis]

The Church repeatedly has asked that in publications that the official name of the Church be used at least somewhere in the article.

TTBOMK the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church has not done so.

Perhaps you didn't look very hard. How about the official response as to whether or not LDS baptisms are valid baptisms?

RESPONSE TO A 'DUBIUM'

on the validity of baptism conferred by

«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,

called «Mormons»

Question: Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Holy See even capitalized "The" and kept "day" lower-case. You couldn't ask for much more, could you?

You're the one whom brought up doctrines and practices.

Sure, but what does past religious persecution by the Catholic Church have to do with whether or not using the name Jesus Christ in the LDS church will convince anyone that Mormons are Christians? That was topic, and your bringing up past religious persecutions was a classic red herring, since it has nothing to do with the topic but instead deflects onto something negative in the Catholic Church's history.

Edited October 31, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[Scott Lloyd]

From this point forward on this board, I would like the Catholic Church to be called, as stated in the Creed: The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anyone who does otherwise is being rude.

I don't think any Mormons on this thread have accused outsiders of being "rude" for not using the formal name of the Church. I know I have studiously avoided doing so. I invite you to examine my posts and point out the contrary, if you can.

Rather, my point is that Church members themselves ought to heed repeated calls by the Church leadership to use the proper name.

Having said this, if there were a formal request from the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church to use a specific designation in referring to that Church such as you have given above, I for one would comply as a matter of courtesy.

There is a comparable real-life analogy. A few years ago, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is headquartered in Independence, Mo., formally changed its name to Community of Christ. Since that time, I have always referred to that religious body by their preferred name, in both written and spoken discourse, as I did before the name change.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Per post 80....What it does do is assert our self-definition and sustain it in the face of the continuing falsehood that we are not Christian. If we affirm the proper name of the Church, those who deny our Christianity are compelled to explain why they do so.

And this is exactly what I am arguing in my post above.

And your point is misplaced. Insistence that members use the proper name of the Church is not an effort to "prove" anything to outsiders. It is a unified expression of self-identity to which all professing members ought to subscribe.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[sheilauk]

From this point forward on this board, I would like the Catholic Church to be called, as stated in the Creed: The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anyone who does otherwise is being rude.

I don't think any Mormons on this thread have accused outsiders of being "rude" for not using the formal name of the Church. I know I have studiously avoided doing so.

to be fair, I did earlier say that it was polite to use the formal name, implying that not doing so is rude! And, again to be fair, I did realise that MiserereNobis was joking in his post above about being rude and I purloined his post to make a further point. My apologies to him.

I invite you to examine my posts and point out the contrary, if you can.

No, you haven't suggested it at all.

Rather, my point is that Church members themselves ought to heed repeated calls by the Church leadership to use the proper name.

i agree.

Edited October 31, 2012 by sheilauk

[Scott Lloyd]

to be fair, I did earlier say that it was polite to use the formal name, implying that not doing so is rude! And, again to be fair, I did realise that MiserereNobis was joking in his post above about being rude and I purloined his post to make a further point. My apologies to him.

No, you haven't suggested it at all.

i agree.

I recognize MiserereNobis said he was joking, but his humor had an edge to it that I felt called for a response.

Also, saying it is polite or courteous to do something or other does not necessarily imply that it is rude to fail to do it. Some behavior is driven more by lack of knowledge or familiarity than by intentional rudeness.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps you didn't look very hard. How about the official response as to whether or not LDS baptisms are valid baptisms?

The Holy See even capitalized "The" and kept "day" lower-case. You couldn't ask for much more, could you?

Sure, but what does past religious persecution by the Catholic Church have to do with whether or not using the name Jesus Christ in the LDS church will convince anyone that Mormons are Christians? That was topic, and your bringing up past religious persecutions was a classic red herring, since it has nothing to do with the topic but instead deflects onto something negative in the Catholic Church's history.

That is good to see.

I find it interesting that while Catholics are becoming more ecumenical as to baptisms with LDS being the exception. To be fair we don't accept any other religions baptisms.

Doctrine and practices. To be fair no group is without skeletons in its closet or at least those that did things without official permission. The sad history of Christianity is strewn with those that did evil acts with and without permission from their ecclesiastical leaders. Protestants and Catholics alike share in the distinction of having doctrines and practices that not only tolerated but promoted those evil acts.

[MiserereNobis]

That is good to see.

I find it interesting that while Catholics are becoming more ecumenical as to baptisms with LDS being the exception. To be fair we don't accept any other religions baptisms.

Actually, the Catholic Church is not becoming more ecumenical as regards baptism. It has always accepted baptisms that are validly done by non-Catholics. In fact, some theologians have interestingly enough pointed out that this means that all Christians children are at baptism Catholic, until they become old enough to separate themselves through belief in heresy or schism.

The key here is "valid," a term which applies to all sacraments and includes matter, form, and intent. A valid baptism has to use water (matter), be done in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (form), and have the purpose to cleanse original sin and to initiate into Christian life (intent). LDS baptism is rejected because of the LDS theology of God, which makes the form invalid, and also because of the LDS rejection of original sin, which makes the intention invalid.

[Calm]

I used to find it puzzling that my mom and dad did this sort of thing -- until in early middle-age I became the father of more than one child and became subject to the same characteristic. I chuckle that some of our youngsters will occasionally correct me, even though they know I know better.

I usually start with my kids' name, then go with my husband's, grandkids' and then end up with the dog...though if it is a bad day a few siblings' names get thrown in here and there. Thankfully my targets find it immensely amusing and just pick whichever one they want to fit so that it reduces me to tears only on very rare occasions now. Edited October 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

This is key. If someone says that the LDS church is not Christian, the response that the church has Jesus Christ in the official name is not going to sway anyone. Honestly, it comes off as a childish response, because the argument is not over the name, but over doctrines and practices.

Then why personalize it by telling professed believers in Christ, and telling others, that those believers are not Christian? Why not keep it on the level of discussion/debate over doctrines and practices?

Personalizing the argument by denying the Christianity of the believers is what strikes me as childish.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, the Catholic Church is not becoming more ecumenical as regards baptism. It has always accepted baptisms that are validly done by non-Catholics. In fact, some theologians have interestingly enough pointed out that this means that all Christians children are at baptism Catholic, until they become old enough to separate themselves through belief in heresy or schism.

The key here is "valid," a term which applies to all sacraments and includes matter, form, and intent. A valid baptism has to use water (matter), be done in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (form), and have the purpose to cleanse original sin and to initiate into Christian life (intent). LDS baptism is rejected because of the LDS theology of God, which makes the form invalid, and also because of the LDS rejection of original sin, which makes the intention invalid.

Please explain this, http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Fellay/Ecumenism_to_Apostacy_pg_2.htm