Again, please forgive me for not including your entire passage in the quote. As before, I did read it all.
I'm sorry for the need to correct you again but the term "catholic" merely means "universal," in that being the first church established in support of the teachings of Christ Jesus, purportedly founded by the Apostle Peter (the Rock upon which I will build My Church), it claims to be the one and only Universal Church.
The word “catholic” (not capitalized) does indeed mean “universal”, as you said. Capitalized, “Catholic” refers specifically to one organization and its members, which calls itself by that name based on its claim that it is that one “catholic” or “universal” church.
Of course, any group claiming to represent the true faith in Jesus Christ is technically just a breakaway sect of this Universal Church. (I am not Catholic btw.) So while Lutherans might not say they are "Catholics" in point of fact they are, just members who refuse to accept certain tenets (like Papal authority, confession, the permanence of marriage, saints and idoletry [sic], etc.).
A “breakaway sect” of a church is no longer part of that church, and cannot even honestly be described as a “sect” of its parent church. It's a separate organization, entirely. I do not think that any Lutheran would claim to be “Catholic”,nor do I think that any Catholic would claim that Lutherans are Catholics. A member of either organization would fully recognize that they are two separate organizations, neither being part of the other, and that the name “Catholic” refers to one of these organizations, while the name “Lutheran” refers to the other organization.
Who are you, being part of neither of those organizations, to make a claim about one of those organizations being part of the other, with which no actual member of either organization would agree?
And no, it is not true that
“any group claiming to represent the true faith in Jesus Christ is technically just a breakaway sect of this Universal Church [The Catholic Church]
”. This is true of the various Protestant churches, the Orthodox churches, and the Episcopalian churches (which I understand to be commonly included under Protestantism, but it seems to me that the history of the Episcopalian churches ought to establish them as being separate from the Protestant movement); but it is not true of the Mormon church or any of its offshoots, nor of certain other churches such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists.
I know that you mention "mormon practices" most of which are secret. I do not claim to be an expert on the Mormon faith (although I have studied some of it's history) but since these mormon practices are secret, aside from retaining polygamy and rejecting the authority of the main church Prophets since breaking away, how would you know if they don't adhere to the essential tenets of the Mormon faith?
You are mistaken about most Mormon practices being secret. I could point out other errors in your argument, here, but it all fails on this one, so there's no need. What is openly taught and practiced by the two different organizations is more than different enough to make it obvious to any rational observer that these are two entirely different religions, with two entirely different organizations; and that one is not in any way a subset of the other.
As for trademark infringement? What church needs to trademark their name? That's a purely civil issue, don't you believe in the separation of church and state?
I think the need should be obvious.
As it is, with all the effort that we make to dissuade such abuse of the term “Mormon”, the reputation of our organization and our faith is constantly being damaged by the false connection made by the misuse of this name between us and other organizations which openly engage in unseemly practices that we do not approve of. It's the same concern that a certain widely-known fast food chain would have if I were to open a restaurant that sold bad-tasting hamburgers of very poor quality, prepared and served under unsanitary conditions, and otherwise violating common standards of the business, and I were to call my restaurant “McDonald's” and to use logos and livery that was similar to those of the well-known chain. The public would predictably, albeit incorrectly, tend to assume that what they experienced at my restaurant was representative of the well-know chain, which, in fact, had nothing to do with me and my restaurant; and this would be very damaging to that well-known chain. Both as a legal requirement to retain the trademark, and in order to protect their own reputation from unjust damage, the well-known chain would have no choice but to sue me for the violation of their trademark, and to take every legal measure to stop my continued misuse of it.
