Sunstoneis easier to read than Dialogue. There has always been a Feminist Magazine–My suscription has lapsed and it’s not easy to find it, though the Editor for many years and received a Pulitzer for her book on the life and practice of a New England midwife.

Romney may have made an oblique reference to her when he said that, deprived by September Dawn of his candidacy, he’d just grow a beard and get a Pulitzer.

Kathleen

PS. I have an recurrent Encephalitus–
forgive the spelling.

I hope you may feel a desire as a writer and reporter to delve more deeply into Mormon beliefs and practices, noting such themes as spiritually guided journeys and sacred fasts as part of the religious heritage that may resonate with you. There are many good reasons to do so, not the least of which is to be better informed about a religion that has been involved in providing humanitarian aid in several recent calamities in our world, working quite closely with your particular faith to help alleviate much suffering.

If you’re an evangelical Protestant, you probably define “Christian” as “true Christian,” i.e. someone who agrees with them. Mormons don’t fit this definition — thank God. (There is much that I admire in evangelical religion — along with much that I do not.)

On the other hand, if you’re an objective observer — a secularist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew — I simply can’t see how you can’t classify Mormonism as part of the general Christian tradition it clearly arises from. As “Charlie Brown” pointed out, Jesus Christ is far more central to Mormon faith than He is to Judaism or Islam.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, and the only savior of the world. No non-Christian religion believes this. Isn’t it fair to declare this to be the crucial determinant of whether a religion is “Christian” or not?

If Mormonism is not all it claims to be, it is — at worst — a Christian heresy. But it is still Christian, unless — to avoid having to associate with those weirdo Mormons — Christians choose to define the heart of their religion as something other than Jesus Christ.

That is, if a belief in Christ as God and Savior doesn’t qualify the believer as Christian, then the essence of Christian faith is something else — be it the Bible, a particular soteriology, or a particular interpretation of the metaphysics of the Trinity.

The problem is that if you start defining the essence of Christianity as involving these secondary doctrinal points (i.e. those going beyond “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”), you start having to question whether Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants belong to the same general “Christian” religions tradition. All of these Christian subgroups have differing doctrines on the secondary points; that’s what divides them. Perhaps the differences between Mormonism and any of those groups are even more pronounced than the differences between them — but that’s a matter of degree, not of substance.

I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of why Mormons should not be considered “Christian.” Heretical, maybe, but Christian, definitely.

If I produce Chevrolets and you produce Toyotas and your friend produces Fords, would you make your buying decision by referring ONLY to what a competitor says?

The Apostle Paul said, “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.”

Mormons bristle when we run across tracts or books that purport to say what our DOCTRINE is, when the statement is not what we believe but some warped interpretation out of left field. In such a case, we’d say please go to http://www.lds.org to see what we claim our doctrine to be.

Does that mean that a Jew, a Catholic, or a Protestant cannot compare their beliefs to Mormon beliefs, and show similarities or differences? Of course not.

Free discussion is the best way to reveal truth, so long as those who discuss do not try to put words in the other person’s mouth.

It’s not intellectually honest to tell me that I am not Christian, when I believe in Him as my Savior as much as you do.

However, it is a fair debate to note that Catholics and Mormons and Unitarians and Baptists and Lutherans may each have a different “flavor” of definition as to what their own take on Christianity is.

As brothers and sisters of one Heavenly Father, we all proceed according to the best light we have. We also learn by sharing the best that we have, since no one has all the answers.

As a Mormon, I will always defend a Baptist or any other person to find Christ the best way he knows how, just as I’d like the same privilege and respect. As the Apostle Paul also said, “we see through a glass darkly.”

That applies to everyone, no matter what their belief.

With all of the evil in the world, we Christians should rejoice in other Christians of similar — if not exact — beliefs, and should combine forces to defend against attacks on our families, public morality and virtue, and the freedoms that God has so richly blessed us with.

Why not spend the energy attacking evil?

If a Christian writer really doesn’t not like or agree with Mormon theology, fine. If he doesn’t like Baptist theology, fine.

I thought the whole Protestant movement was to free up individuals to read the scriptures and pray to God for themselves, not expect some authority figure to tell them what to believe.
Have the Ostlings appointed themselves to be such an authority figure?

Stereotypes do not advance understanding or brotherhood.

http://www.lds.org does not list every flaw or failing in its members or in the Church, but if you expect it to do so to meet your definition of “objective,” show me the Catholic, Protestant or Jewish website that lists all their respective failings and failures.

There are no such websites, because your criteria for “objectivity” is disingenuous.

Each religion has limited resources. How can you blame the Mormons — or anyone else you find fault with, for not listing all their failings on their website or in their publications — while they try to focus their scarce resources on spreading the Savior’s good news to a fallen world?

As a Mormon, I am thankful to God for every person of faith who makes this a better world, and wish there were more. I wish each religion success in proclaiming their message and reaching more people.

People of faith are outnumbered, and the secular world is heading such a direction as to fulfill Luke 18:8, that when the Lord returns, “shall he find faith on the earth?”

Isn’t there a place for tolerance of differing views among Christians?

Who appointed the Ostlings — or you, or me — to be the sole determiners of who is Christian or who is not?

It’s a mark of humility and tolerance to see the good in others and focus on the good, even if they are different in important respects.

On the other hand, it’s divisive and a mark of arrogance and intolerance to focus on the failings in one’s neighbors, real or imagined.

My limited understand of the Fall of Adam is that it was like the Titanic hitting the iceberg, because ALL fall short of the glory of God. There are only a few lifeboats, and a lot of people freezing in the water.

Why not join together and preach together to those who deny the Lord and who promote doubt in the world?

If you want to learn what a Baptist believes, go to a Baptist or to a baptist website, don’t go to a Mormon or a Catholic or a Lutheran. Have enough respect for the other fellow enough to allow him to speak for himself, about what he believes, thinks and feels.

Then, once you have heard from him what he believes and thinks and feels, compare it all you want with the best sources you can — always watching for those who have a hidden agenda, or some bias that leads them to cast stones at a brother who is struggling along.

People are drowning in the cold water. Let’s help them get in the closest boat, and cease the petty arguing amongst ourselves.

There’s work to do.

Petty squabbling with someone of a different theology is divisive. Proclaim your message, and let your message stand on its own.

Allow him to proclaim his message, and let it stand on its own.

We have more that unites us, than divides us — but we have to focus on what unites us.

When you say it is not necessary to go to the official Mormon source you fail to be clear about which issues you are speaking about. Are you saying Ostlings or an excommunicated former member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are as good a source of belief and doctrine as the official source? For history and interpretation of acts of church officials,for example, you are no doubt correct that journalists should look at the arguments of as many sides to the controversey as they can. But do you mean you listen to Ostlings only and not the official source as well?

How do you justify reporting and tacitly accepting the story of ex-communicated scholars regarding their excommunication without disclosing the fact that the official LDS side of the story has not been, and cannot be given. Investigate. You will find that no official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has ever disclosed anything about the Church’s version of what the charges were or what happened at the ex-communication hearing. The reasons for this secrecy are unlikley to be totally self-serving. As a journalist, what is your opinion of the liklihood you have come close to the truth, when you have only one side of the controversey?