I received an interesting email this afternoon from an reader named Adam, who had this to say about the column we ran yesterday:

The statement "an entire society existed in North America for centuries before and after the birth of Christ, planting crops, worshiping in a Judeo-Christian fashion, using an Egyptian-Hebrew hybrid language, riding chariots and smelting iron" isn't really what sophisticated Mormons who accept the historical reality of the Book of Mormon believe. So, in a sense, Romney's hypothetical about a question relying on a misstated version of transubstantiation is accurate. If Kennedy should not be held responsible for clearing up people's misconceptions about a vulgarized version of what Catholics believe, Romney shouldn't either.

You are wrong to say that Romney is implying that transubstantiation is obviously a false doctrine. I doubt he believes it, but he's making the comparison to the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which he does believe. You may (ignorantly) find belief in the Book of Mormon to be contemptuously stupid, but Romney does not, so he obviously doesn't mean to imply that belief in transubstantiation is contemptuously stupid by comparing it to belief in the Book of Mormon. The comparison he is trying to make is that non-Catholics generally hold the belief that transubstantiation is a contemptuously stupid doctrine, and even in its sophisticated forms its not scientifically demonstrable, yet JFK was not required to answer questions on the doctrine.

This is an interesting point. Though I think the reader unfairly characterizes my own opinions about the empirical validity of certain beliefs - he has done a good job characterizing the intention of Romney's statement. But, in yesterday's column, that was not what I was on about. I was on about the impression that he is making.

I've inferred that this reader is a Mormon - which is why I think he was able to tease out precisely what Romney was on about. Davis, according to this reader, has misrepresented Mormon beliefs. Fair enough, but non-Mormons do not know that. If Romney wishes to draw a parallel between Davis's question about Mormon views on ancient American history and Catholic views on transubstantiation that is predicated upon the premises of both questions being false - that might be a good strategy. But it only becomes effective if he makes it clear that Davis's question has a false premise. Otherwise, it makes it look as though he is not denying the premise of Davis's question, and instead responding by arguing that Catholics have beliefs that are equally invalid.

A better response would have been: "Mark, the premise of your question is off. And that's OK. There are a lot of misconceptions about what Mormons actually believe. But it is not my job to straighten that out for you or for anybody else. Imagine somebody asking John Kennedy in 1960 - "Hasn't transubstantiation been disproved by chemistry?" That's a question based upon a misconception of Catholic thinking on the Eucharist. But it wasn't Kennedy's job to correct the false premise. Look, I understand that people have questions about Mormonism, but I am not the person to ask. I'm not here to evangelize for the Mormon faith. If you want to know more about what contemporary Mormons believe, check out [Insert Author and Book Title Here]. But I'm here to talk about [Insert Campaign Rhetoric Here]."

This response would do exactly what I suggested he needs to do: drop the anger and add some good cheer and subtlety. Ultimately, it is a more respectful response because it recognizes that non-Mormons find Mormonism to be peculiar; they are naturally inclined to ask questions because they know so little; those questions are bound to come off sounding a little ignorant to those who do know much about Mormonism; and even though the questions might be out-of-bounds in our tolerant culture, they are nevertheless understandable and not deserving of an angry rebuke (especially from somebody who is asking for votes). And, importantly, it makes his position more clear - the chance of a false impression decreases dramatically precisely because he has, at least, said a little bit about his faith.