Tim Magazine has two articles on Mitt for its upcoming issue. One political, one religious. We'll discuss the later for the moment

Nancy Gibbs writes in "Romney's Mormon Question".

Here are some excerpts and some comments.

The piece is generally fair. But there are two troubling aspects that I can summarize in two questions:

• To Nancy: Can you point me to a religious view that Mormons hold that would directly call into question Mitt's fitness for office?
  
  
• To Jacob Weisberg (whom Nancy quotes prominently): Should the "Weisberg Principle of Nutiness" (my phrase) apply just to people running for President? How about Senate Majority Leader? Congressman? Councilman? Dog Catcher? At what point does someone's faith hit the Weisberg religious ceiling?

OK... now that I have that out of the way. Let's discuss the article in detail:

The Mormon question has settled in right next to the issue of whether a twice-divorced man has credibility discussing family values or whether changing one's mind on an issue like abortion is a sign of moral growth or cynical retreat. Unlike in 1960, today the argument is less about the role of religion in public life than in private. It is about what our faith says about our judgment and how our traditions shape our instincts--and about what we have the right to ask those who run for the highest office in the land.

This is a fair assessment of the general problem before us. I should point out - there's nothing new here - there were similar questions in 2000 and 2004. What's changed? A Mormon has entered the race.

[Referring to Romney's explanation of a "person of faith"] But he can hardly suggest to the devout voters of the G.O.P. base that religious views don't matter, don't warrant discussion or don't affect one's conduct in office. These are voters inclined to think the wall of church-state separation is too high; it is certainly not one any candidate can hide behind. So his challenge is to draw the lines about what's relevant and what's not.

Of course religious views matter and I love discussing them. Here's where I raise my first question from above: Can someone point me to one religious view that Mormons hold that directly disqualifies someone from a political office?

But when it comes to religiously conservative voters, the more people learn, the greater Romney's problem may become. And he will have to decide whether he's willing to provide the kind of public theology lesson that no other candidate has been asked to deliver.

I've found quite the opposite. Everyone I speak to who gets to know Romney is quite taken with him. Take this instance cited in today's New York Times (h/t HH)

Even among evangelicals who say they are at least willing to consider Mr. Romney, support in many cases appears to be shaky. Larry Gordon, senior pastor of Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, said his initial instinct was to rule out Mr. Romney because of his faith. But after his son, who is also a pastor at the church, came away impressed by Mr. Romney after an event, he began to examine him more closely.

Back to Nancy. One error (minor or not):

A separate ceremony was held for "gentiles," as non- Mormons are called.

We don't call them "gentiles". Michael Medved makes a joke about that sometimes. But we refer to non-mormons internally as non-Mormons. I've never heard anyone refer to non-Mormons as gentiles. This is a quibble... but any Mormon proofing the article could have told her that - which indicates that probably no Mormon did review this. Not a big deal... moving on...

"Someone who believes, seriously believes, in a modern hoax is someone we should think hard about," Weisberg argues, "whether they have the skepticism and intellectual seriousness to take on this job."

Here's where our second question comes up: should the "Weisberg Principle of Nuttiness" apply only to people running for President? How about Speaker of the House? How about Congressman? Councilman? Dog catcher? What is the level of importance in public life where the religious ceiling is hit? The other aspect has already been asked... what level of nuttiness is needed? What do you qualify as nutty?

Lastly, it would be great if someone acknowledged or wrote about the thaw happening between Evangelicals and Mormons.

In short, Nancy piece is all around pretty fair. Kudos.

Labels: Mormon, mormonism, nancy gibbs, Time magazine, weisberg