Personally, I do not think that Mormon doctrine is difficult to “pin down,” Evangelical frustrations notwithstanding. I think the reality is more that the landscape and contours of doctrine and theology between Evangelicalism and Mormonism do not have a one-to-one isomorphism. Understanding the history of the development of these views explains why it is that a body of theological thought takes on the shape that it does. In my view, it is less of question of difficulty identifying official Mormon doctrine, as much as the realization that there may not be an official Mormon doctrine on every point of religious inquiry. Often the reason for this is either that the theological system does not lend itself to producing questions in certain areas or there is no proponent arguing otherwise. For example, Mormonism has not produced a need for a dual nature of Christ or a need to create a system of incommunicable and communicable attributes. Mormonism has not developed a need to teach that Christ had pre-fallen Adamic human nature, as other Christian theologies do. The very concept of “nature” in Mormonism is different from that as was developed in historic Christian philosophy. Why is this? It’s in the history. On the other hand, Mormon thinkers have struggled with how to explain God as knowing everything and yet still progressing. Mormon thinkers have struggled with how there can be literal parent-child relationship between God and man given a theology where intelligences cannot be created and are co-eternal. These theological whirlpools are completely absent in traditional Christian theologies. Why? It’s in the history. Identifying the solutions and outlining the contributions made by various individuals in response to such questions is something that seems critically important. As I speak with various individuals I can sense where and what schools of thought seem to influence them. Yet, the resources to explain and more deeply understand these theological currents do not yet exist, or I suppose I should say that there are many resources, and many people who have contributed to my understanding in this area, but the scholarship hasn’t been gathered together in one volume, and of course other areas have not yet been explored. I imagine that if such a book were produced it would be heavily criticized and attacked on many fronts, but perhaps that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps it would simply move the discussion and dialogue in new fresh directions.

It is all too common to see Mormonism being denounced for a concept that is actually shared with one or more Evangelical churches or theologians, though not the one with which the attacking speaker is affiliated.

Years ago, when I lived in Boca Raton, Pat Robertson did a TV show on cults. Of course, we were featured stars! But on every single point he made, he could just as easily have been talking about the Catholic church. Strangely, though, the Catholic church was never mentioned as a cult.

I guess he just wanted to pick on the skinny kid in the room, instead of the big guy.

There are plenty of evangelical blogs out there, but they don’t seem to be as well-organized into a network like the Bloggernacle is.

Are we “well-organized”? I started Mormon Momma on January 1, 2003, when the original Circle of Sisters (I being one of the three) decided to stop writing for Meridian. I don’t recall knowing about any other sites that had author articles and reader feedback. Now my site is listed on a couple of LDS blog aggregators–although at least one of them has a bad feed link. Other than that, I’m not sure what organization we have.

Those sermons made Vincenzo di Francesca, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDcodO5xts0 the most popular pastor in his church until his supervisors found out where he got them from.

Of the basics that I picked up as a teenager, some were those essential things that also happen to be items of overlap, or in common with, LDS gospel principles: God is the same as before, He’s not a respecter of persons, getting answers to prayers, miracles, personal revelation through the Spirit.

Yeah, God could call a prophet today, just like He did in the past. Yeah, God could start training him as a boy, like He did with Samuel. Yeah, Jesus could show his post-resurrection body to people in America, just like he did in Jerusalem. Yeah, God could answer my prayer to know “if these things are true”, because He answered my prayers in the past. Yeah, this Mormon thing about “influence of” and “gift of” the Holy Ghost sounds like the Evangelical thing of “walking in the Spirit”.

I already knew “some churches were ‘truer’ than others” from my Evangelical experience. Evangelicals/Fundamentalists taught me churches who don’t believe in modern miracles, and spiritual gifts, and outpourings of the Spirit, didn’t have the whole picture.

Evangelicals/Fundamentalists taught me that some churches practice “churchianity”, that is, the traditions of men that aren’t really Bible-based, and don’t conform to the Christianity of the Bible.

So in fact, it was Evangelicals/Funamentalists who taught me the concept of being “open ended” and look for “more God” and “more Spirit”.

“Mormonism” is the fulfillment of that to me. In fact, Mormonism is “open ended”, because it teaches that God reveals mysteries and advanced doctrine to you by the Spirit as fast as you can receive it, that God can reveal literally anything that is within your sphere of authority, or general information that is within your ability to handle.

I’d written what, I guess, was worth its being at most a 10-words-long question 1-phrase long question (turned into a ridiculous ramble…that I’ve now re-posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justmeherenow/Evangi-nacle_essay )………