Ed Beitz should not be offended by an honest opinion (Forum, June 26). He is right, as also is President Gordon B. Hinckley, in saying that he, a Mormon, is a Christian. But the Baptists are also right in saying that he is not.
The problem is an honest one, of simple definition. A Mormon is one who accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior while at the same time rejecting the traditional definition of what a Christian is.The Baptists hold to the tradition - a Christian is one who accepts the Nicene Creed as a definition of the nature of God. Since Mormons hold that the Trinity consists of three separate individuals while the traditional view is that the three are different manifestations of the same divine essence, the two groups will never agree.
This is not to say that the Mormons or the Baptists believe that the others are bad people, that they do not serve Jesus Christ to the best of their ability, or that their service to God is not real and sincere.
What good does it do for the orange to tell the apple that it is not a fruit because it is not orange in color, or the apple to tell the orange that it is not a fruit because it has a different flavor? Would it not be better if all of us would stop the arguing when both are right according to their own definition and accept the other's devotion and love of God? This does not mean that neither should try, in an appropriate way, to explain his belief to the other. But should not the explanation be sufficient without any animosity or name calling or rejection? And why would one be upset if the other does not agree? Can't we disagree in love and peace?
Robert W. English
Salt Lake City