Add your bookmarks: The new Mormon American blog critiques the ways that the media is representing Mormonism in this campaign cycle. This week's posts look at Andrew Sullivan, Terry Tempest Williams, and the Washington Post's question, "Is Mormonism Fair Game?"
In a year of rapid-fire media coverage of Mormonism, the goal of the Mormon American blog is to promote better-informed discussion and point out factual errors (Andrew Sullivan) or questionable interpretations (Andrew Sullivan). The two creators, Ryan and D.T. Bell, say they are as Mormon as they come: "Pioneer ancestors, missions to Europe and Latin America, diplomas from BYU, church-going, temple-attending; it’s all there. So we’re pretty well-versed on the topic, and we began to notice just how wrong the media gets it when it comes to Mormons."
In fact, one of them created a similar blog in 2008 when Mitt Romney ran for president the first time. But some things don't change, or don't change enough:
We sort of hoped this time around might be different; after all, reporters and commentators had had four years to familiarize themselves with Mormon doctrine and culture. We were wrong. Hence this blog, the mission of which is to politely but doggedly highlight the inaccuracies and unfair and sloppy thinking that so often characterize the national conversation on Mormonism.
The bloggers describe themselves as Romney supporters, but at least so far, their site is not overtly partisan. It seeks to set the record straight on religion, and does so by pointing the highlights and flaws of current reporting.
I hope that their content continues to be strong and balanced -- and that they'll consider continuing even after the election is over. It's unlikely that "the Mormon moment" will disappear, no matter what happens in the 2012 election, and we need more strong curators of information.
The blog image is used with permission of Shutterstock.com.





coltakashi | Jun 9, 2012 | 1:51pm
Jana, thanks for bringing another worthwhile.blog effort to our attention. Those who argue for the legitimacy of discussing a political candidate’s religion have generally failed to actually discuss a candidate’s actual religion. Rather, they review distortions and falsehoods. The polemical pieces display an ignorance which leads me to conclude that they have never spoken to an actual Mormon about their particular hypothesis, never visited a Mormon church meeting, never devoted any time to familiarizing themselves with even the most elementary explanations of Mormon teachings, including the lesson manuals used for Primary and Sunday School, let alone actually read the Book of Mormon or done a word search through it on lds.org. Rushing to judgment without real understanding of how Mormobs understand themselves is the definition of prejudice.