So I read the New York Times article on Romney’s candidacy today. I have to say, it was one of the more balanced things I’ve read about Mormons in the national press since this campaign season began. The author took a novel step: she asked actual Mormons about church doctrine and culture. Wow!
I quite enjoyed reading the piece. One note, though: I was always taught as a kid that Christ would return to the Mount of Olives, but that he would later go to Missouri, from which he would direct the Millennium. And in any case, while I don’t particularly like the idea of Romney as president (I’m a Leftist, but I vote Democrat out of practicality, so he’s really not my speed), I can’t imagine feeling that he’d committed some sort of grave theological betrayal because he didn’t agree with my Primary teachers on the location of Christ’s return to Earth. Who cares? For that matter, who cares if he’s happy we dropped polygamy? Hey, aren’t most of us happy about that?
Moving on: I was thrilled about the Amish bit at the end of the article. People in California used to ask me why I didn’t wear my “Mormon clothes”. At first, I assumed they were talking about the garments, but someone eventually clarified – she expected me to wear shapeless, long, dark dresses and straw hats. And that was a woman whose own church did all kinds of ecumenical stuff with the California Oakland stake. Seeing references to that kind of misunderstanding in print was enjoyable.
Dear BCC readers, what did you all think of the article?
Addendum: please also see John Fowles’ lengthier post on this article. I didn’t see his post before I wrote my own, and I didn’t intend to poach.’ Sorry, John!